44. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, PHILIPPINES, et al. vs. PEARLIE ANN F.

ALCARAZ
G.R. No. 192571, July 23, 2013

Facts:
Alcaraz signed an employment contract which placed her on probation for a period of six (6) months.
During Alcaraz’s pre-employment orientation, Alcaraz was briefed on her duties and responsibilities as
Regulatory Affairs Manager. On her third month, Alcaraz was informed that she failed to meet the
regularization standards for the position, thus her services had been terminated. Alcaraz filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal and damages against Abbott and its officers. The LA dismissed Alcaraz’s
complaint for lack of merit. Alcaraz filed an appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission, which
reversed the findings of the LA and ruled that there was no evidence showing that Alcaraz had been
apprised of her probationary status and the requirements which she should have complied with in order
to be a regular employee. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the NLRC.
Petitioners filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining
Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Alcaraz moved for the execution of the NLRC’s Decision
before the LA, but the LA denied the said motion which was however reversed on appeal by the NLRC.
Petitioners filed another Petition for Certiorari with the CA assailing the propriety of the execution of
the NLRC decision.

Issue: Whether petitioners are guilty of forum shopping.

Ruling:
No. The prohibition against forum shopping is different from a violation of the certification requirement
under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.Forum shopping takes place when a litigant files multiple
suits involving the same parties, either simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable judgment. It
exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present, namely: (a) identity of parties, or at least such
parties who represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed
for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity with respect to the two preceding
particulars in the two (2) cases is such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case,
regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case. In this case, the
First CA Petition was instituted to question the ruling of the NLRC that Alcaraz was illegally dismissed.
While the Second CA Petition pertains to 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. A
judgment in the Second CA Petition will not therefore constitute res judicata insofar as the First CA
Petition is concerned.

Alcaraz further imputes that the petitioners violated the certification requirement by not disclosing the
fact that it filed the Memorandum of Appeal before the NLRC in the instant petition, because Section
5(b), Rule 7 of the Rules of Court requires that a plaintiff who files a case should provide a complete
statement of the present status of any pending case if the latter involves the same issues as the one that
was filed. If there is no such similar pending case, Section 5(a) of the same rule provides that the plaintiff
is obliged to declare under oath that to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is
pending. The issues raised in the instant petition and those in the Memorandum of Appeal filed with the
NLRC likewise cover different subject matters and causes of action. Thus, petitioners did not have to
disclose in the present petition the filing of their Memorandum of Appeal with the NLRC.