G.R. No. 114924-27 March 18, 1997
DANTE NACURAY, ANGELITO ACOSTA and LARRY CLEMENTE, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and BMC-BENGUET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Dante Nacuray, Angelito Acosta, and Larry Clemente were employed by BMC-Benguet Management Corporation as helpers and air-grinder operators under fixed-term contracts, which were renewed several times before their eventual termination due to alleged substandard performance. They filed complaints for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, declaring them regular employees and ordering reinstatement. BMC appealed to the NLRC, which reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on October 29, 1993. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on December 16, 1993.
The procedural controversy arose from the actions of petitioners’ former counsel, Atty. Francisco Ferraren. On December 17, 1993, a day after the NLRC denial, Atty. Ferraren filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 112834) without petitioners’ knowledge. The Third Division dismissed this petition via a Minute Resolution on January 24, 1994, for non-compliance with procedural requirements and for lack of merit, and this resolution became final. Subsequently, petitioners, through a new counsel, filed the instant petition on April 26, 1994, seeking to set aside the NLRC decision.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether Atty. Ferraren was authorized to file the first petition; (2) whether petitioners are guilty of forum shopping; and (3) what is the effect of the final dismissal of the first petition.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On the first issue, the Court held that Atty. Ferraren remained the counsel of record when he filed the first petition. For a valid substitution of counsel, the Rules require a written request, the client’s written consent, the outgoing counsel’s written consent, or proof of service of the motion for substitution. Petitioners’ claim of prior verbal notice to Atty. Ferraren was insufficient. Thus, when he filed the petition on December 17, 1993, he presumptively acted with authority, and petitioners are bound by his actions, including the negligence leading to the petition’s dismissal.
On the second issue, the act of filing two petitions constituted forum shopping. The first petition sought the same relief—annulment of the NLRC decision—as the instant petition. This violates the rule against multiplicity of suits. Finally, the dismissal of the first petition by the Third Division via a final and executory Minute Resolution renders the matter res judicata. A final judgment can no longer be modified, and one Division of the Supreme Court cannot review or overturn a final resolution of another Division. Consequently, the instant petition cannot be entertained.