G.R. No. 152476; July 8, 2003
UNITED SPECIAL WATCHMAN AGENCY, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, CESAR PAMA, ET AL., and the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent security guards filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner United Special Watchman Agency (USWA) and Banco Filipino (BF). The guards were deployed to BF under a security services contract. BF terminated the contract just two days after its effectivity, with the termination to take effect 30 days from USWA’s receipt of the notice. USWA claimed it notified the affected guards to report for reassignment, but only 30 out of 67 complied. The remaining guards, claiming they were placed on floating status, filed the complaint. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled for the employees. The NLRC, on appeal, ordered USWA to pay separation pay, finding no proof the employees were notified of reassignment.
USWA filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed it outright due to a defective certification of non-forum shopping, as the signatory lacked proper authorization for all named petitioners. USWA filed a motion for reconsideration and later a second motion for reconsideration. While this second motion was pending before the CA, USWA filed the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

(1) Was USWA guilty of forum shopping for filing the Supreme Court petition while its second motion for reconsideration was pending before the Court of Appeals? (2) Was the dismissal of the guards illegal?

RULING

Yes, USWA was guilty of forum shopping. The elements are present: identity of parties, rights asserted, and relief prayed for, founded on the same facts. The pending second motion for reconsideration in the CA and the petition before the Supreme Court both ultimately sought to overturn the NLRC decision holding USWA liable for separation pay. A second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading. By filing it and then simultaneously seeking relief from the Supreme Court, USWA engaged in forum shopping. The Court condemns such practice as it trifles with judicial processes and wastes court resources.
On the substantive issue, the dismissal was illegal. The termination of the security contract with BF did not automatically terminate the guards’ employment with USWA, their direct employer. USWA failed to substantiate its claim that it notified the guards of available reassignments. The burden of proof to show compliance with procedural due process and the existence of a valid authorized cause for dismissal lies with the employer. USWA’s failure to prove it offered immediate reassignment constituted illegal dismissal, making it liable for separation pay. The subsequent compromise between BF and the employees regarding salary differential did not extinguish this separate liability for separation pay arising from illegal dismissal.