GR 175900; (June, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175900; June 10, 2013
KAPISANANG PANGAUNLARAN NG KABABAIHANG POTRERO, INC. and MILAGROS H. REYES, Petitioners, vs. REMEDIOS BARRENO, LILIBETH AMETIN, DRANREV F. NONAY, FREDERICK D. DIONISIO and MARITES CASIO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Kapisanang Pangaunlaran ng Kababaihang Potrero, Inc. (KPKPI) is a non-stock corporation engaged in microfinance. It hired respondents for various positions between 1997 and 2001. On September 20, 2001, respondents filed a complaint before the DOLE-NCR for underpayment of wages and non-payment of statutory benefits (DOLE Case). During its pendency, respondents were terminated in October 2001. Consequently, they filed complaints for illegal dismissal with money claims before the NLRC (NLRC Case). Petitioners argued that respondents were not employees but volunteers and that the filing of the two cases constituted forum shopping. Respondents moved to withdraw the DOLE Case, but it was left unresolved.
ISSUE
Whether respondents committed forum shopping by filing the DOLE Case and the NLRC Case.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that respondents did not commit forum shopping. Forum shopping exists when a party seeks substantially the same relief in different courts or quasi-judicial bodies, indicating a desire to obtain a favorable judgment. The Court clarified that the causes of action and reliefs sought in the two proceedings were distinct. The DOLE Case, filed prior to termination, involved pure money claims for alleged violations of labor standards over which the DOLE exercises visitorial and enforcement powers. The subsequent NLRC Case, triggered by the dismissals, was a complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for reinstatement, backwages, and separation pay—matters within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC.
The legal logic is grounded on the principle that the DOLE’s visitorial power under Article 128 of the Labor Code is confined to cases where an employer-employee relationship still exists. Once termination occurs, that jurisdiction ceases, and the remedy shifts to filing an illegal dismissal case before the NLRC. The Court held it would be unjust to penalize employees for forum shopping when their later cause of action (illegal dismissal) arose only after the filing of the initial complaint for labor standards. The separate filings were necessitated by distinct jurisdictional grounds and the supervening event of dismissal, not by an intent to abuse court processes. Thus, the NLRC and CA erred in dismissing the complaints on forum shopping grounds. The case was remanded to the NLRC for resolution on the merits of the illegal dismissal and related claims.