SARA LEE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. MACATLANG, ET AL., GR No.

180147, June 4, 2014

(Second Division), Perez

Facts:

Petitioners are Sare Lee Philippines Inc., Aris Philippines, Inc., Sara Lee
Corporation, Atty. Cesar Cruz, and Fashion Accessories Philippines, Inc. (FAPI).

The controversy stemmed when Aris Philippines, Inc., a corporation engaged in

the business of producing gloves and other apparel, and herein, one of the petitioners,
filed a Notice of Permanent Closure with the Department of Labor and Employment and
all employees were informed. But its employees staged a strike for violation of duty to
bargain collectively, union busting, and illegal closure. Thus, they entered into an
agreement that Aris would pay its employees benefits.

A month later, another company, FAPI, was incorporation, and when the affected
employees learned of it, they filed complaints citing Aris for illegal dismissal. They
alleged that FAPI engaged in the manufacture and exportation of the same articles
manufactured by Aris, that there was a mass transfer of Aris’ equipment and employees
to FAPI’s, that contractors of Aris continued as contractors of FAPI—essentially, they
insisted that FAPI was organized by Aris to continue the same business, thus intending
to defeat the employees’ right to security of tenure.

Aris denied any connection with FAPI. But the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment
finding the dismissal illegal and awarded the labourers separation pay, and other
monetary benefits amounting to Php 3, 453, 664, 710.86.

The Corporations filed their NOTICE OF APPEAL with MOTION TO REDUCE

APPEAL BOND with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). They asked
the appeal bond to be reduced to 1M, alleging that it is impossible for any insurance
company to cover such a huge amount, and that, in requiring them to post in full the
appeal bond, would be tantamount to denying them their right to appeal. The
corporation posted a total of only 4.5M.

Emilinda Macatlang, et. al., opposed the motion, asserting that failure to comply
with the bond requirement would render any appeal nugatory, since an appeal may only
be perfected upon posting of the bond equivalent to the monetary award, as provided by
Article 223 of the Labor Code1.

However, the NLRC granted the motion of the Corporations. It ordered them to
post an additional 4.5M bond, bringing the total posted bond to 9M. Macatlang, et.al,
filed a PETITION FOR CERTIORARI with the Court of Appeals, alleging that NLRC of
grave abuse of discretion. Another petition, this time, by Pacita Abelardo, et. al., was
also filed before the CA. The Corporations filed a MOTION TO DISMISS on the
grounds of forum-shopping.

While the case was pending, NLRC issued a Resolution setting aside the
decision of the Labor Arbiter, and remanded the case to the forum of origin for further
proceedings. In light with this development, the Corporations filed their Manifestation
and Motion praying for the DISMISSAL of the petition for certiorari of Macatlang, et.al.,
for being moot and academic.

Meanwhile CA reversed the NLRC resolution and deemed it reasonable to

compel the Corporations to post an additional 1B appeal bond.

The Corporations raised the following error: the CA erred in not dismissing
Macatlang et.al.’s petition due to the filing of two separate petitions for certiorari. The
two petitions raised the same causes of action, subject matters, and issues, a clear
violation of the rule against forum-shopping

Issue/s:

(1) Whether or not the respondents violated the rule against forum-shopping when
they filed two petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, with both petitions
assailing the validity of the NLRC Resolution, which granted petitioners’ motion to
reduce the appeal bond.
(2) Whether or not the decision of the NLRC which reversed the decision of the
Labor Arbiter finding the Corporations guilty of illegal dismissal, was rendered
prematurely, considering that the same was still pending in the Court of Appeals.

Ruling:

(1) Yes, the petitioners of the Abelardo petition committed forum-shopping, but
the petitioners in the Macatlang petition did not. The Abelardo petition has been
dismissed by the CA on account of the 411 dismissed employees in the petition, all of
which were already petitioners in the Macatlang petition, assailing the same issue and
asking for the same relief as that of the later.

Forum shopping is the act of a litigant who repetitively avails of several judicial
remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all founded on the same
transactions, the same essential facts and circumstances, the same issues either
pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court, to increase his chances
of obtaining a favourable decision if not in one court, then in another.

In determining whether forum shopping exists or not, is to check the vexation

caused to the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on
the same or related cases and/or grant the same reliefs, in the process creating the
possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by different courts on the same issues.

Forum shopping exists when: (1) the elements of litis pendentia are present, and
(2) when a final judgment on one case will amount to res judicata. For litis pendentia to
exist as ground for dismissal of an action, there must be: (a) identity of the parties or at
least such as to represent the same interest in both actions; (b) identity of rights
asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same acts; and (c) identity
in the two cases should be such that the judgment which may be rendered in one would,
regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other.

In the case at bar, the Abelardo petition was filed 10 days after the Macatlang
petition, and these two assailed the same order and resolution of the NLRC. A
judgment in either case would have amounted to res judicata in the other. Morevoer,
the 411 petitioners in the Abelardo petition were part of the 5, 984 petitioners in the
Macatlang petition. Thus, the Abelardo petition is rightfully dismissed by the CA.

But the act of the 411 should not prejudiced the rights of the 5, 573 other
complainants in the Macatlang petition. The 411 are not representative of the interests
of all the petitioners as the number is barely sufficient to cover the majority and it would
be the height of injustice to dismiss the Macatlang petition which evidently enjoys the
support of the majority, due to the mistake committed by the petitioners in the Abelardo
petition.

In the absence of substantial similarity between the parties, we find that the
petitioners in Macatlang did not commit forum shopping.

(2)Yes. Corporations invoked the decision issued by the NLRC which set aside
the Labor Arbiter’s decision and ordered the case to be remanded to the forum of origin
and have the instant petitions dismissed for being moot.

When the NLRC granted the motion to reduce the appeal bond and the
Corporations posted the required additional bond, the appeal was deemed to have been
perfected. The act of NLRC in deciding the case was based on petitioner’s appeal of
the labor arbiter’s ruling, which it deemed to have been perfected and therefore, ripe for
decision.

Prudence however dictates that the NLRC should not have decided the case on
its merits during the pendency of the instant petition. The very issue raised in the
petitions determines whether or not the appeal by the Corporations has been perfected.
Until its resolution, the NLRC should have held in abeyance the resolution of the case to
prevent the case from being mooted. The NLRC decision was issued prematurely.
 Wherefore, decision of the CA is MODIFIED. Corporations are directed to post
725M in cash or surety bond within 10 days from receipt of this decision. Resolution of
NLRC is VACATED for being premature and the NLRC is DIRECTED to act with
dispatch to resolve the merits of the case upon the perfection of the appeal.

1 Labor Code. ART. 223. Appeal. In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the
employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding
company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the
judgment appealed from.

SARA LEE PHILIPPINES INC., v. MACATLANG, ET AL., (GR No. 180147, January 14,
2015 (Special Second Division), Perez

RESOLUTION

This treats the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Sara Lee Philippines, Inc., Aris
Philippines Inc., Sara Lee Corporation, and Cesar C. Cruz.

Factual Antecedents:

Aris permanently ceased operations on 9 October 1995 displacing 5,984

rankand-file employees. On 26 October 1995, FAPI was incorporated prompting former
Aris employees to file a case for illegal dismissal on the allegations that FAPI was a
continuing business of Aris. SLC, SLP and Cesar Cruz were impleaded as defendants
being major stockholders of FAPI and officers of Aris, respectively.

On 30 October 2004, the Labor Arbiter found the dismissal of 5,984 Aris
employees illegal and awarded them monetary benefits amounting to
P3,453,664,710.86. The judgment award is composed of separation pay of one month
for every year of service, backwages, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's
fees.

The Corporations filed a Notice of Appeal with Motion to Reduce Appeal

Bond.They posted a P4.5 Million bond. The NLRC granted the reduction of the appeal
bond and ordered the Corporations to post an additional P4.5 Million bond.

The 5,984 former Aris employees, represented by Emilinda Macatlang

(Macatlang petition), filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals insisting that
the appeal was not perfected due to failure of the Corporations to post the
correctamount of the bond which is equivalent to the judgment award.
 While the case was pending before the appellate court, the NLRC prematurely
issued an order setting aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter for being procedurally
infirmed.

The Court of Appeals, on 26 March 2007, ordered the Corporations to post

anadditional appeal bond of P1 Billion.

In our Decision dated 4 June 2014, we modified the Court of Appeals' Decision,
to wit:

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.

96363 dated 26 March 2007 is MODIFIED. The Corporations are directed to
post P725 Million, in cash or surety bond, within TEN (10) days from the
receipt of this DECISION. The Resolution of the NLRC dated 19 December
2006 is VACATED for being premature and the NLRC is DIRECTED to act
with dispatch to resolve the merits of the case upon perfection of the
appeal.

We also resolved the procedural issue of forum-shopping by holding that the

411petitioners of the Pacita Abelardo petition (Abelardo petition) are not representative
of the interest of all petitioners in Macatlang petition. The number is barely sufficient to
comprise the majority of petitioners in Macatlang petition and it would be the height of
injustice to dismiss the Macatlang petition which evidently enjoys the support of an
overwhelming majority due to the mistake committed by petitioners in the Abelardo
petition.

Issue: Whether or not the NLRC violated the rule on judicial courtesy when it issued its
Resolution vacating the Labor Arbiter’s Decision which ruled on the illegal dismissal of
Aris’ employees, remanding the case to the Labor Arbiter for further proceeding as no
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or Writ of Preliminary Injunction was issued by the
Court of Appeals.

Ruling:

Yes. Corporations argue that the rule on judicial courtesy remains the exception
rather than the rule. We do not agree.

The principle of judicial courtesy applies when there is a strong probability that
the issues before the higher court would be rendered moot as a result of the
continuation of the proceedings in the lower court.

The ruling of the NLRC would moot the appeal filed before the higher courts
because the issue involves the appeal bond which is an indispensable requirement to
the perfection of the appeal before the NLRC. Unless the issue is resolved, the NLRC
should be precluded from ruling on the merits on the case.