GR 207286; (July, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 207286 , July 29, 2015
DELA ROSA LINER, INC. AND/OR ROSAURO DELA ROSA, SR. AND NORA DELA ROSA, Petitioners, vs. CALIXTO B. BORELA AND ESTELO A. AMARILLE, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents Calixto Borela and Estelo Amarille, a bus driver and conductor, filed separate complaints (later consolidated) against petitioner Dela Rosa Liner, Inc. and its owners for underpayment/non-payment of salaries, holiday pay, overtime pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, sick leave and vacation leave, night shift differential, illegal deductions, and violation of Wage Order Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16. Petitioners moved to dismiss the case for forum shopping, alleging that a similar case between the parties (CA-G.R. SP No. 118038) had been disposed of by the Court of Appeals after they entered into a compromise agreement which covered all claims and causes of action in relation to the respondents’ employment. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on grounds of forum shopping. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, reinstated the complaint, and held there was no identity of causes of action between the two cases. The NLRC noted the first complaint charged illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice, while the second complaint was based on nonpayment/underpayment of salaries and monetary benefits and violation of wage orders. The CA denied petitioners’ certiorari petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC ruling and ruling out forum shopping and res judicata as bars to the second complaint.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the NLRC ruling that the second complaint is not barred by forum shopping or res judicata.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The Court held that the second complaint (a money claim for labor standards benefits) is not a “similar case” to the first complaint (involving illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice). The elements of forum shopping were not present, as there was no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, and the judgment in the first action would not amount to res judicata. There was no identity of causes of action because the same facts or evidence would not support both actions. The facts or evidence to determine illegal dismissal/unfair labor practice are not the same as those to support the charge of noncompliance with labor standards benefits and wage orders. The compromise agreement in the first case was executed to terminate the illegal dismissal and unfair labor case then pending before the CA; it could not have included the labor standards claims which were filed subsequently. The petition was also found to have been timely filed.