Abbot Laboratories Philippines, et al.

vs Perlie Alcaraz
GR No. 192571, July 23, 2013

Facts:
The respondent Alcaraz was the Regulatory Affairs and Information Manager of Aventis Pasteur
Philippines who showed interest in applying as a Medical and Regulatory Affairs Manager, a
position that was published by the petitioner Abbot Laboratories in the newspaper. When the
petitioner formally offered the position to the respondent, the latter accepted the position. It was
on May 23, 2005 that Walsh, Almazar and Bernardo formally handed to the respondent a letter
terminating her employment with the detailed explanation for her termination. The respondent
then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with damages against the petitioner and its officers.
The Labor Arbiter upheld the termination of probationary employment of the respondent holding
that the termination was justified with no evidence showing that the officers of the Abbot Lab
acted in bad faith when terminating her services.
The NLRC annulled and set aside the ruling of the Labor Arbiter which prompted the petitioners
to file before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari with prayer for issuance of a temporary
restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction. Meanwhile, the action of the petitioner on its
motion for reconsideration of the CAs resolution in the second CA petition was denied that
became final on January 10, 2011 because the petitioner failed to file a timely appeal on the
said decision. Alcaraz, in her comment, raised the issue on forum shopping when the petitioner
filed its second petition to the CA pending the resolution of the motion for reconsideration that
they filed earlier in the December 10, 2009 decision. Alcaraz further contends that the
petitioners failed to comply with certification requirement under Section 5, Rule 7 of the rules of
court when they failed to disclose in their petition filed on June 16, 2010 Memorandum of Appeal
filed before the NLRC.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner violated the rule against forum shopping and have violated the
certification requirement under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.
Held:
The court emphasized that the compliance with the certification against forum shopping is
different and separate from the avoidance of the act of forum shopping itself. There is difference
in the treatment between the two situations in terms of the imposable sanctions and the means
of enforcing them. The failure to comply with the certification requirement against forum
shopping is sufficient cause for the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice to the filing of
the complaint or initiatory pleading upon motion and after hearing. The failure to avoid the act of
forum shopping, on the other hand, is a sufficient ground for a summary dismissal and direct
contempt.

In the first situation, forum shopping takes place when the party files multiple suits that involve
the same parties with the same issue, either simultaneously or successively, in order to obtain a
favorable judgment. It is present when there is the requisites of litis pendentia namely : (1)
identity of parties is the same with the same interests in both actions, (2) identity of rights
asserted and reliefs prayed for and founded on the same facts, (3) identity of the two preceding
cases where a judgment rendered in the pending case will amount to res judicata in the other
case. Taking into account these requisites, the court found no elements of a forum shopping.
The first petition before the CA was instituted in order to question the NLRC ruling with respect
to the illegal dismissal of Alcaraz. The second petition before the CA involves the issue on the
propriety of the enforcement of the judgment award pending the resolution of the first CA
petition and the finality of the decision in the labor dispute between the parties. The decision on
the first CA petition does not amount to res judicata with respect to the second petition before
the CA as the two petitions involve different subject matter and cause of action, hence there is
no forum shopping.
In the second situation, section 5 of Rule 7 of the Rules of Court requires the plaintiff to
disclose/declare under oath that the best of his knowledge no such other action or claim is
pending before other courts. Records show that the issues raised in the petition before the CA
and those raised in the June 16, 2010 Memorandum of Appeal filed before the NLRC cover
different subject matter and causes of action, therefore there was no violation of the said
provision of the rules of court.