A.C. No. 8481 - Alonso vs. Relamida

In March 2001, Jennifer Ebanen filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal against Servier Philippines, Incorporated (Servier), alleging constructive dismissal with prayers for reinstatement or corresponding monetary relief.
The case was docketed as NLRC-NCR-Case No. 30-03-01583-01.
On July 5, 2002, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Servier, finding that Ebanen voluntarily resigned and hence was not illegally dismissed.
Ebanen appealed the ruling before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and on March 31, 2003, the NLRC-Third Division affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
Subsequent motions for reconsideration were filed by Ebanen; however, the NLRC denied her request in a Resolution dated May 5, 2003.

Dissatisfied with the NLRC decision, Ebanen advanced her case by filing a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 77968.
On January 16, 2004, the CA affirmed the NLRC finding that Ebanen voluntarily resigned, thereby denying her illegal dismissal claim.
Ebanen sought reconsideration via further motions, which were likewise denied in resolutions dated April 30, 2004, and January 19, 2005.
Ebanen attempted to file additional motions for reconsideration (including a third motion and a supplemental motion), but these were rejected or noted without action.
The decision of the CA, particularly the Resolution dated August 4, 2004, became final and executory with an Entry of Judgment issued on February 17, 2005.

Despite the final and executory nature of the previous judgments, Ebanen, through her counsel Atty. Ibaro B. Relamida, Jr., filed a second complaint for illegal dismissal on August 5, 2005, now docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-08-07222-05, based on the same cause of action of constructive dismissal.
On October 13, 2005, Servier, through its counsel, filed a letter-complaint with the then Chief Justice, alleging that Atty. Relamida’s involvement in the second complaint amounted to a violation of the rules on forum shopping and res judicata.
The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated November 15, 2005, required both Ebanen and Atty. Relamida to comment on the disciplinary letter-complaint; the respondents submitted their Comments on January 16, 2006.

Both respondents admitted to filing the second complaint.
They contended that the Labor Arbiter’s decision was null and void due to a denial of due process—specifically, the failure to grant a motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum for vital documents.
Based on that contention, they claimed that the decision did not reach res judicata and therefore did not trigger the prohibition against filing multiple actions on the same cause.
Servier, however, argued that the final judgment precluded any subsequent filing, alleging clear-cut violations of forum shopping and res judicata.

On February 7, 2006, the Court referred the bar matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and recommendation.
During a mandatory conference before the IBP on March 14, 2008, procedural issues were discussed, including the status of Ebanen (not being a lawyer) and the representation by Atty. Relamida.
The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) ultimately recommended, on April 19, 2008, that Atty. Relamida be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months for violating the principles of res judicata and forum shopping.
The IBP Board of Governors later modified the penalty initially but eventually endorsed the suspension based on the violation's gravity.
Administrative actions followed, including recommendations by the Office of the Bar Confidant, to officially mark the disciplinary sanctions against Atty. Relamida.

Whether the filing of the second complaint by Atty. Relamida, representing Ebanen, constituted an instance of forum shopping.

Determination if repeatedly litigating the same cause of action, despite the finality of the previous judgment, falls under the definition of forum shopping.
Consideration of how the repeated filing affected the orderly administration of justice and the integrity of judicial processes.

Whether Atty. Relamida’s conduct breached the ethical and professional standards expected of lawyers by violating the rules on res judicata.

Whether his participation in both the initial proceedings and the second complaint, knowing that the matter had been resolved, demonstrates a conflict with his oath as a lawyer.
The extent to which his actions potentially delayed the judicial process and infringed on the rights of the opposing party (Servier).

Whether the abandonment of due process claims by invoking prior due process deficiencies justifies the filing of a new complaint, or if it merely constitutes a tactic intended to circumvent res judicata.