The Supreme Court has ruled that filing separate labor complaints does not constitute forum shopping if the causes of action, issues, and supporting facts are distinct. This means an employee can pursue multiple claims arising from related but separate incidents without risking dismissal, as long as each case addresses different rights and remedies.

Davao or Manila? Unraveling Forum Shopping in Labor Disputes

This case revolves around Rolan E. Buensalida, an aircon maintenance technician for Tegimenta Chemical Philippines, who initially filed a complaint in Davao City for illegal deductions related to hospitalization expenses. Later, after being reassigned to Manila, he filed another complaint alleging constructive illegal dismissal and underpayment of benefits. The employer, Tegimenta Chemical, argued that the second complaint constituted forum shopping, seeking its dismissal. The central legal question is whether Buensalida’s actions amounted to forum shopping, potentially jeopardizing his claims.

The Supreme Court emphasized that determining the cause of action in NLRC cases requires evaluating not only the initial complaint but also the position papers submitted by the parties. The complaint form itself is often a general checklist and does not fully define the specific claims being pursued. The court highlighted Section 3, Rule V of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, which states that position papers should cover only those claims and causes of action raised in the complaint.

SECTION 4. SUBMISSION OF POSITION PAPERS/MEMORANDA. Without prejudice to the provisions of the last paragraph, Section 2 of this Rule, the Labor Arbiter shall direct both parties to submit simultaneously their position papers with supporting documents and affidavits within an inextendible period of ten (10) days from notice of termination of the mandatory conference.

These verified position papers to be submitted shall cover only those claims and causes of action raised in the complaint excluding those that may have been amicably settled, and shall be accompanied by all supporting documents including the affidavits of their respective witnesses which shall take the place of the latter’s direct testimony. The parties shall thereafter not be allowed to allege facts, or present evidence to prove facts, not referred to and any cause or causes of action not included in the complaint or position papers, affidavits and other documents.

The court elaborated on the definition of a cause of action, explaining that it is the delict or wrongful act committed by the defendant that violates the plaintiff’s primary right. The High Tribunal distinguished the issues raised in the Davao case, which centered on illegal deductions and the employer’s refusal to process SSS and Philhealth forms, from those in the NCR case, which focused on constructive illegal dismissal and underpayment of monetary benefits. The facts supporting each case were also distinct, with the Davao case related to hospitalization costs and salary deductions, while the NCR case pertained to the alleged harassment and underpayment following the filing of the initial complaint. Because the factual bases differed, the High Tribunal said the evidence needed to prove each claim was also distinct.

The court noted that forum shopping involves filing multiple suits with the same parties and cause of action to obtain a favorable judgment. The elements of litis pendentia must be present, including identity of parties, rights asserted, and relief sought, such that a judgment in one case would constitute res judicata in the other. Even though there was an identity of parties, the second and third elements were not met. The court emphasized that the cause of action for constructive illegal dismissal could not have been included in the Davao case because it arose after the initial complaint was filed.

The High Tribunal also discussed the rule against splitting causes of action, stating that the inclusion of the respondent’s claim for illegal constructive dismissal in the Davao case was impossible as it arose only after the filing of the initial case. The court explained that this rule would typically require including all related claims in one complaint, that provision didn’t apply as the facts constituting constructive illegal dismissal happened later. Lastly, the Supreme Court noted that consolidating the cases wasn’t an option since they were filed in different regional arbitration branches of the NLRC.

FAQs

What is forum shopping?	Forum shopping is the act of filing multiple lawsuits based on the same cause of action and with the same parties, aiming to secure a favorable ruling by choosing the most advantageous venue.
What is constructive illegal dismissal?	Constructive illegal dismissal occurs when an employer’s actions or policies make continued employment unbearable for the employee, effectively forcing them to resign.
What is litis pendentia?	Litis pendentia arises when there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, such that the second action becomes unnecessary and vexatious.
What is res judicata?	Res judicata prevents the relitigation of matters that have already been decided in a final judgment between the same parties or their privies.
Why was the second complaint not considered forum shopping in this case?	The second complaint was not considered forum shopping because it involved a different cause of action (constructive illegal dismissal) that arose after the first complaint was filed, and the factual circumstances were distinct.
What is the significance of position papers in NLRC cases?	Position papers in NLRC cases are crucial because they define the specific issues and claims being pursued by the parties, going beyond the general allegations in the initial complaint form.
What is the rule against splitting causes of action?	The rule against splitting causes of action requires a party to include all claims arising from the same set of facts in a single lawsuit to prevent multiple litigations.
Can cases filed in different regional arbitration branches of the NLRC be consolidated?	No, the NLRC Rules of Procedure do not allow for the consolidation of cases pending before different regional arbitration branches.

This case clarifies that employees are not barred from filing separate complaints for distinct causes of action, even if related to previous claims. By considering the totality of the circumstances, the court safeguarded the employee’s right to seek redress for grievances that emerged at different times.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Tegimenta Chemical Phils. v. Buensalida, G.R. No. 176466, June 17, 2008