Second Division Agenda for ___________ Item No. ________ G.R. No.

175900 Kapisanang Pangkaunlaran ng Kababaihang Potrero Inc. and Milagros H. Reyes v. Remedios Barreno, Lilibeth metin, !ranrev ". #onay, "rederick !. !ionisio and Marites $asio. x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x DE ISI!N This is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision2 dated July 31, 2 Dece"#er 1$, 2 ! and the Resolution3 dated 3 of ! rendered #y the Court of %ppeals &C%' in C%()*R* +, -o*

$15$5* The C% affir"ed with "odification the Decision 4 dated June 3 , 2

the -ational .a#or Relations Co""ission &-.RC' finding the respondents to have co""itted foru" shopping #ut ordered the re"and of -.RC -CR Case -os* (1 ( 5313(2 1 and (1 ( 552!(2 1 to the -.RC for further proceedings on the "atter of illegal dis"issal, separation pay, da"ages and attorney/s fees* "#e $acts ,etitioner 0apisanang ,ang1aunlaran ng 0a#a#aihang ,otrero 2nc* &0,0,2' is a non(stoc1, non(profit, social service oriented corporation* 2n -ove"#er 1334, the Technology and .ivelihood Resource Center &T.RC' tapped 0,0,2 to participate in its "icrolending progra" and was granted a loan for "icrofinance or re(lending for the poor* %s a result, the respondents were hired for its 0,0, 5ile ,rogra" as follows6
Name 2* .ili#eth %"etin 4* 9rederic1 Dionisio 5* 5arites Casio Date %ired January 1333 &osition Training 8fficer Coordinator :ncoder Collector 5otivator

1* Re"edios 7arreno -ove"#er 1334 3* Drandrev 9* -onay June 1334 June 2!, 1334

9e#ruary 15, 1334 8fficer(2n(Charge

1 2 3 4

Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Rollo, pp. 15-21. Id. at 22-23. Id. at 24-28.

8n +epte"#er 2 , 2

1, the respondents filed a co"plaint 5 for i"proper

pay"ent of wages and non(pay"ent of their la#or standard #enefits, na"ely, legal;special holiday pay, 13th "onth pay and service incentive leave pay against 0,0,2 and its ,rogra" 5anager, petitioner 5ilagros <* Reyes, #efore the Depart"ent of .a#or and :"ploy"ent &D8.:' ( -CR, C%5%-%=% D2+TR2CT, doc1eted as .+:D( 1 3(2+( 23* 7ut #efore the sa"e could #e resolved, a "e"o signed #y petitioner Reyes was served on respondent 7arreno ter"inating her fro" e"ploy"ent effective 8cto#er 1, 2 1 pro"pting the latter to file on said date another co"plaint ! against the petitioners this ti"e for illegal dis"issal with prayer for reinstate"ent and pay"ent of their "oney clai"s #efore the -ational .a#or Relations Co""ission &-.RC'* doc1eted as -.RC(-CR -orth +ector Case -o* 1 8n 8cto#er 1!, 2 (1 ( 5313(2 The case was 1*

1, respondents %"etin, -onay, Dionisio and Casio 1 and no longer allowed to wor1 when they tried to

followed suit4 after they were ver#ally told #y petitioner Reyes of their ter"ination on 8cto#er 3, 2 report on 8cto#er 15, 2 1 to 15, 2 513(2 Case -o* 1 ( 552!(2 1* They were also not paid their salaries fro" 8cto#er 1 and thereafter consolidated with Case -o* 1 (1 (

1* Their co"plaint was doc1eted as -.RC(-CR -orth +ector

1 &7arreno/s case' upon "otion* 1, the respondents "oved for the withdrawal $ of

8n Dece"#er 13, 2

their co"plaint pending #efore the D8.: in .+:D( 1 3(2+( 23 in view of the institution of their illegal dis"issal co"plaint with "oney clai"s #efore the -.RC* Records, however, show that the said "otion was left unresolved* 8n the other hand, petitioners denied that the respondents were its e"ployees clai"ing that the latter >oined as volunteers and were "erely given so"e allowances and rei"#urse"ents for their e?penses* 5oreover, they averred that the respondents co""itted foru" shopping having raised the sa"e cause of action and relief #efore the D8.:* They thus denied the respondents/ "oney clai"s for lac1 of factual and legal #ases* 3
5 6 7 8 CA Rollo, p. 60. Id. at 62. Id. at 63-64. Id. at 85-86. Id. at 80-84.

2n their reply,1 the respondents denied that they were "ere volunteers of 0,0,2 and su#"itted a copy of an office "e"orandu" issued #y petitioner Reyes respecting the rules on a#sences of all its e"ployees to prove that they were under 0,0,2/s control* They li1ewise averred that there was no foru" shopping as their co"plaint #efore the D8.: referred to "oney clai"s only and that the sa"e had already #een withdrawn* R'(ing of t#e )a*or Ar*iter 2n a Decision11 dated June 2$, 2 2, .a#or %r#iter 5el@uiades +ol D* Del

Rosario ruled in favor of the respondents* <e held that there was no foru" shopping as the su#se@uent co"plaint for illegal dis"issal was already outside the >urisdiction of the D8.: and that their "oney clai"s pending #efore it would have to #e auto"atically consolidated with the illegal dis"issal case* The .% li1ewise found su#stantial evidence to support the respondents/ clai" that they were 0,0,2 e"ployees as against the petitioners/ #are and self(serving allegation that they were "ere volunteer "e"#ers* Conse@uently, for failure to >ustify their dis"issal, the petitioners were ordered in solidum to pay the respondents their #ac1wages rec1oned fro" the date of their dis"issal on 8cto#er 1, 2 1 for 7arreno and 8cto#er 3, 2 1 for the re"aining respondents which, as of June 1, 2 2, has already accu"ulated in the su" of ,54,!33*

each as well as separation pay of one &1' "onth for every year of service* The respondents were also awarded their clai" for underpay"ent of their salaries which was li"ited to a period of three &3' years rec1oned fro" the filing of their co"plaints and attorney/s fees e@uivalent to ten &1 A' percent of the total "onetary award* The rest of the "oney clai"s were denied for lac1 of factual and legal #ases* %ggrieved, petitioners filed a 5e"orandu" on %ppeal 12 to the -.RC and posted a surety #ond in the a"ount of ,553, * * The respondents opposed13 the sa"e contending in the "ain that the #ond posted was
10 11 12 13 Id. at 87-8 . Rollo, pp. 50-67. CA Rollo, pp. 3 -43. Id. at 113-120.

insufficient as it was not e@uivalent to the total "onetary award, which as per co"putation of the -.RC/s Co"putation Bnit had a"ounted to ,$32,135* e?clusive of 1 A attorney/s fees* %s such, the respondents "oved for its dis"issal for failure to perfect the sa"e*

R'(ing of t#e N)R 8n June 3 , 2 3, the -.RC rendered a Decision 14 setting aside the .%/s

decision and dis"issing the co"plaint upon a finding that the respondents co""itted foru" shopping in filing the sa"e co"plaint against the petitioners in two venues* Respondents/ "otion for reconsideration 15 was denied in the 3* Resolution1! dated 8cto#er 3 , 2

Bndaunted, respondents elevated the foregoing decision to the Court of %ppeals #y way of a petition for certiorari under Rule !5 of the Rules of Court* They averred that the -.RC acted with grave a#use of discretion in giving due course to the appeal which was not perfected for failure to post the re@uired #ond and in holding that they co""itted foru" shopping*

R'(ing of t#e o'rt of A++ea(s 2n a Decision14 pro"ulgated on July 31, 2 !, the C% found no grave

a#use of discretion to have #een co""itted #y the -.RC in giving due course to the appeal and in setting aside the .%/s decision* The C% agreed with the -.RC/s finding that the respondents co""itted foru" shopping in see1ing their "oney clai"s #efore the D8.: and the -.RC* -onetheless, it held that since the respondents pleaded other causes of action in their -.RC case, that is, illegal dis"issal, separation pay, da"ages and attorney/s fees, the C% ordered the re"and of the case to the -.RC for further proceedings on the said issues* The C% li1ewise did not give "erit to respondents/ contention that the appeal was not perfected holding that the provisions of the .a#or Code on the re@uired
14 15 16 17 Rollo, pp. 24-28. CA Rollo, pp. 4 -55. Id. at 58-5 . !upra, see note 2.

#ond "ust #e given a li#eral interpretation* 7oth parties "oved for a reconsideration of the C%/s decision which was denied in the assailed Resolution1$ dated Dece"#er 1$, 2 !*

<ence, the instant petition filed #y 0,0,2 and Reyes anchored on the core issue of whether or not the C% erred in ordering the reinstate"ent and re"and of the illegal dis"issal co"plaints to the -.RC despite a finding that there was foru" shopping* R'(ing of t#e o'rt %fter a thorough review of the records, the Court is inclined to set aside the findings of the C%* 9oru" shopping e?ists when one party repetitively avails of several >udicial re"edies in different courts, si"ultaneously or successively, all su#stantially founded on the sa"e transactions and the sa"e essential facts and circu"stances, and all raising su#stantially the sa"e issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely, #y so"e other court* 13 Chat is truly i"portant to consider in deter"ining whether it e?ists or not is the ve?ation caused the courts and parties(litigants #y a party who as1s different courts and;or ad"inistrative agencies to rule on the sa"e or related causes causes and;or grant the sa"e or su#stantially the sa"e reliefs, in the process creating the possi#ility of conflicting decisions #eing rendered #y the different %ora upon the sa"e issues*2 2n the case case at #ar, contrary to the findings of the C%, there is no identity of causes of action #etween the co"plaints filed #efore the D8.: and the -.RC* The D8.: case involved violations of the la#or standard provisions while the -.RC co"plaints @uestioned the propriety of the respondents/ dis"issal* -o less than the .a#or Code provides for these two separate re"edies for their distinct causes of action* ,ertinent on this point is the ruling in $onsolidated Broadcasting &ystem, Inc. v. 'berio, () where the Court held, to wit6
18 1 20 21 !upra, see note 3. Co"a-Cola #ottlers $%h&ls.', In". et al. (. !o"&al !e"ur&t) Co**&ss&on et al., +. R. ,o. 15 323, -ul) 31, 2008. .un&"&pal&t) of /a0u&0, et al. (. Court of Appeals, +.R. ,o. 14261 , !epte*1er 13, 2005 +.R. ,o. 168424, -une 8, 2007, 524 !CRA 365.

Bnder %rticle 214 of the .a#or Code, ter"ination cases fall under the >urisdiction of .a#or %r#iters* Chereas, %rticle 12$ of the sa"e Code vests the +ecretary of .a#or or his duly authoriDed representatives with the power to inspect the e"ployer/s records to deter"ine and co"pel co"pliance with la#or standard laws* The e?ercise of the said power #y the +ecretary or his duly authoriDed representatives is e?clusive to cases where e"ployer( e"ployee relationship still e?ists* Thus, in cases where the co"plaint for violation of la#or standard laws preceded the ter"ination of the e"ployee and the filing of the illegal dis"issal case, it would not #e in consonance with >ustice to charge the co"plainants with engaging in foru" shopping when the re"edy availa#le to the" at the ti"e their causes of action arose was to file separate cases #efore different %ora*

5oreover, since the e"ploy"ent relationship has #een ter"inated during the pendency of the D8.: co"plaint, the recovery of wages and other "onetary clai"s and #enefits sought therein is no longer vested with the D8.: #ut with the -.RC and their inclusion in the illegal dis"issal cases was therefore in order*22 ,rescinding fro" the foregoing, it was error on the part of the C% to uphold the finding of foru" shopping* 2n the sa"e vein, the Court cannot concur with the C%/s finding that the petitioners have perfected their appeal #efore the -.RC* %t the outset, it #ears to stress that there is no inherent right to appeal in a la#or case as it arises solely fro" grant of statute, na"ely the .a#or Code* 23 Bnder %rticle 223 of the .a#or Code, an appeal is perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety #ond in the a"ount e@uivalent to the "onetary award in the >udg"ent appealed fro"* The appeal #ond re@uire"ent is a rule of >urisdiction and not of There is, thus, little leeway for procedure, hence, cannot #e trifled with* 24

condoning a li#eral interpretation thereof, and certainly none pre"ised on the ground that its re@uire"ents are "ere technicalities* 25 -on(co"pliance with such legal re@uire"ents is fatal and has the effect of rendering the >udg"ent final and e?ecutory* +ince the #ond posted #y the petitioners in the a"ount of ,553, * is ad"ittedly less than the total "onetary award which as per co"putation of the -.RC/s Co"putation Bnit had a"ounted to ,$32,135*
22 People's Broadcasting Service (Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc.) v. The Secretary of the epartment of !abor and "mployment, et al., +.R. ,o. 17 652, .ar"h 6, 2012, 667 !CRA 538. 23 Roos Ind#strial $onstr#ction, Inc. et al. v. %ational !abor Relations $ommission, +.R. ,o. 17240 , 2e1ruar) 4, 2008, 543 !CRA 666. 24 $omp#ter Innovations $enter v. %ational !abor Relations $ommission, +.R. ,o. 152410, -une 2 , 2005, 462 !CRA 183. 25 I1&d.

e?clusive of 1 A attorney/s fees, the appeal was not perfected* Conse@uently, the decision of the .a#or %r#iter dated June 2$, 2 2 had in effect #eco"e final and e?ecutory, placing it #eyond the power of the -.RC to review or reverse* ,%ERE$!RE, pre"ises considered, the assailed Decision and

Resolution dated July 31, 2

! and Dece"#er 1$, 2

!, respectively, of the 2 is

Court of %ppeals in C%()*R* +, -o* $15$5, are RE-ERSED and SE" ASIDE* The final and e?ecutory Decision of the .a#or %r#iter dated June 2$, 2 here#y REINS"A"ED* S! !RDERED.