Borra v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute over whether petitioners were regular employees of Hawaiian Philippine Company (HPCO). Petitioners filed two separate complaints in 1997: one seeking recognition as regular employees and benefits, and another for unpaid wages and other monetary benefits. HPCO moved to dismiss the first complaint, arguing that a prior case, Perez v. Hawaiian Philippine Co., had already established that petitioners were not its employees but rather employees of a contractor, Jose Castillon. The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the complaint based on this argument, but the NLRC reversed this, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC's decision. HPCO then appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the CA's ruling, stating that the prior case involved different causes of action and a different period of employment. Procedural History: While the first complaint was pending, a separate decision was rendered in RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97, which involved the same petitioners and HPCO, along with Fela Contractor. This decision, which became final and executory, ruled that no employer-employee relationship existed between HPCO and the petitioners, as they were employed by Fela Contractor, which had replaced Jose Castillon. Based on this new final judgment, HPCO again moved to dismiss RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97. The Labor Arbiter denied this motion, leading HPCO to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The CA granted the petition, annulling the Labor Arbiter's order and dismissing RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the present petition. The Petition: Petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to nullify the CA's resolutions and decision. They argue that the CA acted without jurisdiction by taking cognizance of HPCO's second petition, contending that a prior Supreme Court ruling in G.R. No. 151801 had directed further hearings by the Labor Arbiter. Petitioners also claim the CA erred by disregarding the identity of subject matter and causes of action between the current case and previous rulings, and that HPCO engaged in forum shopping by filing multiple motions and petitions. The Supreme Court, however, found that the CA had jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari when the denial of a motion to dismiss is tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The Court further held that the final and executory decision in RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97 established res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment, settling the issue of employer-employee relations between HPCO and the petitioners, thus warranting the dismissal of the case.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of private respondent's petition for certiorari. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in disregarding established facts regarding the identity of subject matter and cause of action. Whether private respondent committed forum shopping.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The assailed Decision and Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 78729 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Court of Appeals' Jurisdiction: The Court held that the CA has jurisdiction over the special civil action for certiorari filed by private respondent. While the NLRC rule proscribes appeals from a denial of a motion to dismiss, this is similar to the general rule in civil procedure that such orders are interlocutory. The remedy is to proceed to trial and, if adverse, appeal the entire case. However, certiorari under Rule 65 is available if the denial of the motion to dismiss is tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The CA correctly took cognizance of the petition because private respondent alleged and established grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter in denying its motion to dismiss, which was based on the final and executory decision in RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97. On the Identity of Subject Matter and Cause of Action (Res Judicata): The Court affirmed the CA's finding that the issue of employer-employee relationship between petitioners and private respondent had already been settled by the final and executory decision in RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97. This decision explicitly ruled that petitioners' real employer was Fela Contractor, not HPC. Therefore, the principle of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment applies, as the fact or question of employer-employee relations was squarely put in issue, judicially passed upon, and adjudged in the former suit. It is premature to determine regularization or monetary benefits if there is no employer-employee relationship. On Forum Shopping: The Court ruled that private respondent was not guilty of forum shopping. Forum shopping involves filing multiple cases based on the same transactions and essential facts, raising substantially the same issues, to increase chances of a favorable decision. In this case, while private respondent filed motions to dismiss in both instances, the basis for the res judicata claim was different. The first motion cited the Perez case, while the second motion relied on the final and executory decision in RAB Case No. 06-09-10699-97. These relied on different factual and legal foundations, thus, the relief prayed for was founded on different facts and issues, negating the element of identity required for forum shopping.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the case based on res judicata, as a prior final and executory decision had already determined the absence of an employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and the private respondent. The subsequent filing of a motion to dismiss based on this new final judgment did not constitute forum shopping.