G.R. No. 222424. September 21, 2016.
FONTANA DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. SASCHA VUKASINOVIC, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Sascha Vukasinovic was hired by petitioner Fontana Development Corporation (FDC) under a one-year contract as Director for Business Development, which was renewed for another year. In May 2010, he received information from Jenny Mallari alleging corrupt activities by company officers. Vukasinovic gave Mallari money in exchange for evidence, which later proved to be fabricated. When confronted by FDC following an investigation, Vukasinovic admitted to giving money, justifying it as a common practice. Consequently, FDC terminated his employment for acts of dishonesty, specifically bribery, under its Code of Conduct.
Vukasinovic filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed his complaint, upholding the validity of his fixed-term contract and his dismissal for just cause. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the validity of the dismissal but modified the decision to award Vukasinovic unpaid salaries for specific periods. During the pendency of the petition before the Supreme Court, it was confirmed that Vukasinovic had passed away.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the petition should be dismissed due to the death of the respondent during its pendency. A secondary, threshold issue is whether Vukasinovic engaged in forum shopping, which would warrant the dismissal of his action.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA. The Court held that the death of the respondent did not automatically abate the action, as the determination depended on whether the action survived. An action for illegal dismissal primarily seeks reinstatement and backwages—remedies that are personal to the employee. Since the core relief of reinstatement is extinguished by death, and the claim for backwages becomes a monetary claim incidental to the personal action, the cause of action does not survive. However, the Court proceeded to resolve the petition on its merits due to a dispositive threshold ground.
The Court found that Vukasinovic was guilty of deliberate forum shopping. Records revealed he had previously filed a separate complaint involving the same parties, facts, and causes of action, which had already been dismissed by the Labor Arbiter, with the dismissal sustained by the NLRC and the CA. Forum shopping is a willful act of litigating the same issue in different courts to obtain a favorable ruling, which constitutes abuse of process and warrants the dismissal of both actions. Since his prior action was dismissed on this precise ground, his subsequent complaint (the subject of this petition) must likewise be dismissed. Consequently, the Court reversed the CA decision and ordered the dismissal of Vukasinovic’s petition for certiorari.