Case Digest (G.R. No. 176466)
Facts:
Tegimenta Chemical Phils./Vivian D. Garcia v. Rolan E. Buensalida, G.R. No. 176466, June 17, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.Tegimenta Chemical Philippines, a sole proprietorship owned by Vivian D. Garcia (petitioner), supplied and maintained air‑conditioning units and hired Rolan E. Buensalida (respondent) as an aircon maintenance technician on September 8, 1997. On February 26, 2003, respondent injured his left ring finger while working at an SM Department Store in Davao City, underwent surgical debridgement and was hospitalized. SM initially paid P30,331.61 for respondent’s hospitalization but later recovered that amount from petitioner, who informed respondent that the sum would be deducted from his salary; beginning April 20, 2003 petitioner deducted P300 weekly (P1,200 monthly).
Respondent sought to avail himself of SSS benefits and completed an Employee Notification Form (SSS Form B‑300) which he mailed to petitioner; petitioner allegedly did not return the form on the ground that it was filed beyond the allowable period and likewise ignored respondent’s PhilHealth Form 1. On May 16, 2003 respondent filed a complaint before the Regional Arbitration Branch No. XI, NLRC‑Davao City (docketed NLRC Case No. RAB‑XI‑05‑00537‑03, the “Davao case”), for “constructive dismissal with money claims” raising, among others, issues of alleged illegal deductions and related claims arising from the hospitalization incident.
While the Davao case was pending, petitioner recalled respondent to the head office in Quezon City by memorandum dated September 25, 2003; subsequent memoranda reassigning respondent to Manila as night shift supervisor (effective October 6, 2003) were refused by respondent who claimed the reassignment would reduce his regular income and benefits. On October 27, 2003 respondent filed another complaint for constructive illegal dismissal before NLRC‑NCR‑North Sector in Quezon City (NLRC‑NCR North Sec Case No. 00‑10‑12481‑03, the “NCR case”), later amending it to add claims for underpayment of salaries, service incentive leave, 13th month pay and boarding house rental.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the NCR case on forum‑shopping grounds, asserting the Davao case was a pending similar action; respondent opposed, arguing the two cases raised different causes of action. Labor Arbiter Antonio A. Cea granted the motion and dismissed the NCR complaint on July 15, 2004 on the ground that its cause of action was embraced in the Davao case. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal in resolutions dated July 7 and October 25, 2005.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in a Decision dated November 28, 2006 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 92810), reversed and set aside the NLRC resolutions, holding that the two cases raised distinct causes of action as shown by the parties’ position papers and, therefore, respondent was not guilty of forum‑shopping. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent engage in forum‑shopping when he filed the NCR case while the Davao case was pending?
- Whether the cause(s) of action in the Davao and NCR complaints are identical such that the NCR case should have been dismissed on the face of the complaint.
- Whether the two cases could or should have been consolidated under the NLRC Rules despite being pending before differe...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)