G.R. No. 152476 - United Special Watchman Agency vs. Court of Appeals

A Contract for Security Services was entered into on June 1, 1994 between United Special Watchman Agency (USWA) and Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (BF).
The contract contained a stipulation that either party must provide a thirty (30)-day notice prior to termination.
Despite the contractual provision, BF terminated the contract on June 3, 1994—only two days after its effectuation.
BF’s termination letter, dated June 3, 1994 and received on June 17, 1994, informed USWA that the termination would take effect thirty days after receipt.

Upon receiving the termination notice, USWA’s Operations Manager, Mr. Angel Baliwag, immediately informed all affected employees stationed at BF branches about the termination.
USWA instructed the employees to report to the office for reassignment.
Out of 67 employees, only 30 reported to the office and were given new assignments.
The remaining 37 employees, mostly left without work assignments, subsequently filed complaints.

On August 4, 1994, 21 of the 37 employees initially filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of money claims against USWA and BF before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
The complaint was later amended on August 29, 1994, to include all 37 employees.
During the course of the proceedings, five of the originally non-reporting employees eventually reported to the office and were reassigned.
The employees claimed they were placed on a floating status and contended that USWA had failed to notify them of any standing offer for reassignment, thereby entitling them to separation pay.
On January 8, 1998, the Labor Arbiter ordered USWA to pay separation pay, along with salary differential and attorney’s fees.
On July 23, 1998, the NLRC remanded the case due to insufficient basis for findings on illegal dismissal and wage differentials.
A compromise settlement was reached on March 2, 2000 between BF and part of the employees concerning wage differentials, but it did not address the claim for separation pay.
The NLRC later ruled in favor of the employees regarding separation pay, basing its decision on the absence of proof that the employees had been notified for reassignment, despite USWA’s contention that the employees refused to report.

USWA filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals on November 16, 2001, challenging the NLRC’s decision and, more specifically, the appellate court’s handling of its earlier petition for certiorari.
The initial petition was dismissed on the ground that Gen. Rodrigo Ordoyo, who signed the certification of non-forum shopping, was not properly authorized by a board resolution covering all petitioners (USWA and BF).
USWA then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with attached board resolutions; however, only USWA’s authorization was provided, which failed to cover all petitioners.
A second Motion for Reconsideration with Leave of Court was subsequently filed while the first motion was still pending.
While the second motion was pending, USWA filed the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
On June 27, 2002, the Court of Appeals dismissed the second motion for reconsideration as a prohibited pleading.

USWA argued that it did not engage in forum shopping since the issues raised in its motions before the Court of Appeals and those in the instant petition were distinct.
Contrarily, evidence indicates that both the motions for reconsideration and the petition for certiorari sought to obtain a favorable disposition regarding the same underlying issues, particularly the determination of whether the employees were illegally dismissed and thus entitled to separation pay.
The contention on forum shopping arose due to USWA pursuing parallel relief in different proceedings, notwithstanding the existence of a pending second motion for reconsideration.

Whether USWA committed forum shopping by filing a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court while a second Motion for Reconsideration was still pending before the Court of Appeals.
Whether the elements of litis pendentia or the application of res judicata exist between the different pleadings (motion for reconsideration and petition for certiorari).

Whether the employees were illegally dismissed, given that only a portion of them reported for reassignment.
Whether USWA (and by extension BF) is liable for the payment of separation pay, in light of the established facts regarding the termination, notification, and subsequent employee status.
Whether the NLRC’s findings, which supported the claim that employees were put on a floating status and that the reassignment exceeded the allowable period, are conclusive.

Whether the failure to secure a proper board resolution authorizing the signing of the certification of non-forum shopping, covering all petitioners, is fatal to USWA’s petition.
Whether the existence and acknowledgment of multiple pleadings amount to an abuse of the judicial process.