Dear Atty. Kathy,

Our Company has a service agreement with Contractor X for the provision of housekeeping services. Employees of Contractor X who were assigned to our Company for the duration of the service agreement filed a case against us for regularization and payment of benefits of regular employees. While the case was ongoing, the service agreement with Contractor X expired. Therefore, when the employees of Contractor X tried to enter our Company premises after the expiration of our service agreement with Contractor X, said employees were not allowed to enter our compound. A week after this incident, we received another complaint filed against us, this time for illegal dismissal, and asking for payment of back wages and separation pay. Is this not forum shopping since the employees of Contractor X already have an ongoing case filed against our Company?

Elliot

***

Dear Elliot,

According to the Supreme Court, forum shopping 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. (Jules King M. Paiton, et al. vs ARMSCOR Global Defense Inc. et al., G.R. 255656, 25 April 2022)

Based on what you mentioned, it does not appear that Contractor X's employees committed forum shopping in filing the second and later case for illegal dismissal despite the ongoing first and earlier case for regularization. There is no identity in the causes of action of the two cases, the first case being for regularization, and the second case for illegal dismissal. There is no identity, as well, in the reliefs sought — regularization and payment of regular employees' benefits for the first case; and back wages and separation pay for the second case. In addition, when the first case for regularization was filed, it appears that Contractor X's employees were still reporting for work in your Company as their assignment was for the duration of the service agreement. Their only cause of action then was for regularization. Contractor X's employees only filed the illegal dismissal case when they were not allowed to enter your Company's compound after the expiration of the service agreement, hence, the filing of the second case for illegal dismissal.