G.R. No.

192571 July 23, 2013

ABBOTT LABORATORIES, PHILIPPINES, CECILLE A. TERRIBLE, EDWIN D. FEIST, MARIA OLIVIA T.

Facts:

Petitioner Abbott Laboratories, Philippines (Abbott) caused the publication in a major broadsheet newspaper of its need
for a Medical and Regulatory Affairs Manager. Alcaraz - who was then a Regulatory Affairs and Information Manager at
Aventis Pasteur Philippines, Incorporated (another pharmaceutical company like Abbott) showed interest and submitted
her application. In Abbotts offer sheet, it was stated that Alcaraz was to be employed on a probationary basis. Later that
day, she accepted the said offer and received an electronic mail (e-mail) from Abbotts Recruitment Officer, petitioner
Teresita C. Bernardo (Bernardo), confirming the same.

During Alcarazs pre-employment orientation, petitioner Almazar, Hospiras Country Transition Manager, briefed her on her
duties and responsibilities as Regulatory Affairs Manager. Petitioner Walsh, Manager of the Literature Drug Surveillance
Drug Safety of Hospira, will be her immediate supervisor. Petitioner Misa, Abbotts Human Resources (HR) Director, sent
Alcaraz an e-mail which contained an explanation of the procedure for evaluating the performance of probationary
employees. During the course of her employment, Alcaraz noticed that some of the staff had disciplinary problems. Thus,
she would reprimand them for their unprofessional behavior such as non-observance of the dress code, moonlighting, and
disrespect of Abbott officers. However, Alcarazs method of management was considered by Walsh to be "too strict."

Alcaraz was called to a meeting with Walsh and Terrible, Abbotts former HR Director, where she was informed that she
failed to meet the regularization standards for the position of Regulatory Affairs Manager. Walsh, Almazar, and Bernardo
personally handed to Alcaraz a letter stating that her services had been terminated effective May 19, 2005. The letter
detailed the reasons for Alcarazs termination. Alcaraz felt that she was unjustly terminated from her employment and thus,
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages against Abbott and its officers, namely, Misa, Bernardo, Almazar,
Walsh, Terrible, and Feist.

Alcaraz 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 CA’s 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:

At the outset, it is noteworthy to mention that the prohibition against forum shopping is different from a violation of the
certification requirement under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. In Sps. Ong v. CA, 55 the Court explained that:

x x x The distinction between the prohibition against forum shopping and the certification requirement should by now be
too elementary to be misunderstood. To reiterate, compliance with the certification against forum shopping is separate
from and independent of the avoidance of the act of forum shopping itself. There is a difference in the treatment between
failure to comply with the certification requirement and violation of the prohibition against forum shopping not only in terms
of imposable sanctions but also in the manner of enforcing them. The former constitutes sufficient cause for the dismissal
without prejudice to the filing of the complaint or initiatory pleading upon motion and after hearing, while the latter is a
ground for summary dismissal thereof and for direct contempt. x x x. 56

As to the first, 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. 57

In this case, records show that, except for the element of identity of parties, the elements of forum shopping do not
exist. Evidently, the First CA Petition was instituted to question the ruling of the NLRC that Alcaraz was illegally
dismissed. On the other hand, 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 between Alcaraz and the
petitioners. Based on the foregoing, a judgment in the Second CA Petition will not constitute res judicata insofar as the
First CA Petition is concerned. Thus, considering that the two petitions clearly cover different subject matters and causes
of action, there exists no forum shopping.

As to the second, Alcaraz further imputes that the petitioners violated the certification requirement under Section 5, Rule 7
of the Rules of Court58 by not disclosing the fact that it filed the June 16, 2010 Memorandum of Appeal before the NLRC
in the instant petition.

In this regard, 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.

Records show that the issues raised in the instant petition and those in the June 16, 2010 Memorandum of Appeal filed
with the NLRC likewise cover different subject matters and causes of action. In this case, the validity of Alcaraz’s
dismissal is at issue whereas in the said Memorandum of Appeal, the propriety of the issuance of a writ of execution was
in question.

Thus, given the dissimilar issues, petitioners did not have to disclose in the present petition the filing of their June
16, 2010 Memorandum of Appeal with the NLRC. In any event, considering that the issue on the propriety of the
issuance of a writ of execution had been resolved in the Second CA Petition – which in fact had already attained finality –
the matter of disclosing the June 16, 2010 Memorandum of Appeal is now moot and academic.