GR 159919; (August, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 159919 , August 8, 2007
Composite Enterprises, Inc. vs. Emilio M. Caparoso and Joeve Quindipan
FACTS
Petitioner Composite Enterprises terminated respondents Emilio Caparoso and Joeve Quindipan. The Labor Arbiter ruled the dismissal illegal and ordered reinstatement with backwages. Pending appeal, the Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution. Petitioner, claiming reinstatement was impossible, reinstated respondents on the payroll instead of physically, conditioned on the NLRC’s resolution of its motion to pay separation pay. The NLRC later reversed the Labor Arbiter, finding no illegal dismissal. However, the Labor Arbiter still ordered petitioner to pay accrued salaries for the period from receipt of the initial decision until its reversal by the NLRC. The NLRC affirmed this order.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 73269), which was dismissed for failure to attach proof that the signatory was authorized. Within the reglementary period to appeal the NLRC ruling, petitioner filed a second Petition for Certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 73791) instead of moving for reconsideration of the first dismissal. The CA dismissed this second petition for failure to attach an affidavit of service and, upon reconsideration, ruled the dismissal was proper under the principle of res judicata, as the first dismissal had become final.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the second petition for certiorari on the ground of res judicata.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on the finality of judgments and the doctrine of res judicata. The first CA Resolution dismissing the initial petition for certiorari due to a procedural defect (lack of proof of authority of the signatory) was a final adjudication on the merits of that particular petition. A dismissal for failure to comply with procedural requirements, such as the verification and certification against forum shopping, is a dismissal with prejudice and constitutes res judicata.
Petitioner’s remedy after the first dismissal was to file a motion for reconsideration with the same CA Division. By instead filing a second petition within the reglementary period for appealing the NLRC decision, petitioner improperly attempted to circumvent the first final order. The reglementary period for appealing the NLRC decision does not grant a party the right to file multiple petitions correcting prior procedural lapses. The second petition constituted forum shopping, as it sought the same relief based on the same grounds after the first petition had been finally disposed of. Therefore, the CA correctly barred the second petition under the principle of res judicata.