G.R. No. 80863. April 27, 1989.
ANTONIO M. VILLANUEVA and FULGENCIO B. LAVAREZ, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE ABEDNEGO O. ADRE, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, 11th Judicial Region, and LUCIO VELAYO, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from labor complaints for unpaid thirteenth-month pay filed against South Cotabato Integrated Port Services, Inc. (SCIPSI) and its president, Lucio Velayo. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed an initial dismissal and ordered payment, a decision which became final. After a corporate audit determined the liability, a writ of execution was issued, leading to the levy on properties registered in Velayo’s name. While a petition questioning the audit was pending with the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 77300-01), Velayo separately filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (Special Case No. 227), arguing he was not a party to the labor case and that the corporate veil should protect him. The RTC issued a temporary restraining order against the execution. The labor arbiter, sheriff, and union then filed the instant certiorari petition challenging the RTC’s jurisdiction. Subsequently, the parties in G.R. Nos. 77300-01 entered into a Compromise Agreement approved by the Supreme Court, settling the monetary claim.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the regular courts have jurisdiction to stay the execution of a final and executory judgment rendered by the labor arbiters. A corollary issue is whether the filing of the separate RTC petition constitutes forum-shopping.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the regular courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the execution of a final labor arbiter’s decision. Jurisdiction over such execution pertains exclusively to the NLRC and the Department of Labor and Employment, as decreed by the Labor Code. The RTC therefore erred in assuming jurisdiction over Special Case No. 227. The Court further found that the filing of the RTC petition while labor proceedings (and a related Supreme Court petition) were pending constituted forum-shopping. Forum-shopping exists when a party, anticipating an unfavorable ruling, seeks a favorable opinion in another forum. Velayo’s proper recourse was to raise any objection to the execution within the ongoing labor proceedings, not via a separate court action. Although the Compromise Agreement in G.R. Nos. 77300-01 rendered the instant petition moot, the Court proceeded to rule on the merits due to the ethical implications of forum-shopping. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition as moot, ordered the RTC to dismiss Special Case No. 227, and found both Lucio Velayo and his counsel, Atty. Oscar Dinopol, guilty of contempt for forum-shopping. They were fined and Atty. Dinopol was suspended from the practice of law for three months.