THIRD DIVISION
|
SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC., Petitioner, - versus - MILDRED R. SANTOS, in her official capacity
as President of, and/or ASBT INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE, INC., LORD NELSON SANTOS, DANILO
BALCITA, NICSON CRUZ, PEPITO MANGLICMOT, and ALLAN ARANES, Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 152579
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: August 4,
2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
This is a petition[1]
for review on certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision[2]
dated December 10, 2001 and the Resolution[3]
dated March 12, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 65068 entitled ASBT International Management Service
Incorporated v. National Labor Relations Commission, Sameer Overseas Placement
Agency, Incorporated, Lord Nelson Santos, et al.
The antecedents are as follows:
On December 5, 1995, private respondents Lord Nelson
Santos, Danilo Balcita, Nicson Cruz, Pepito Manglicmot, and Allan Aranes
(Santos, et al.) were recruited by petitioner Sameer Overseas Placement Agency,
Inc. (Sameer) as aluminum products manufacturer operators for Ensure Company
Ltd. of Taiwan (Ensure), under a one-year employment contract with a basic
monthly salary of NT$14,800.00.
On November 3, 1997, Sameer filed a third party complaint
against private respondent ASBT International Management Service, Inc. (ASBT). It
claimed that the latter should be liable for all the contractual obligations of
Ensure since Sameer’s accreditation was transferred to ASBT on June 9, 1997.
On December 29, 1999, the Labor Arbiter rendered a
Decision,[4]
disposing as follows—
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, SAMEER is hereby ordered to pay the complainants:
1. The amount of NT$156,120.00 to LORD NELSON
SANTOS covering the underpayment of monthly salaries for the period of five (5)
months, salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract and refund of the
unauthorized salary deduction, Sixty Five Thousand (P65,000.00) Pesos as
refund of the placement fee and guaranty fee less Five Thousand (P5,000.00)
Pesos, and Six Thousand (P6,000.00) Pesos as refund for the cost of his
plane ticket;
2. The amount of NT$154,560.00 to DANILO
BALCITA covering the underpayment of monthly salaries for the period of six (6)
months, salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract and refund of the
unauthorized salary deduction, Sixty Five Thousand (P65,000.00) Pesos as
refund of the placement fee and guaranty fee less Five Thousand (P5,000.00)
Pesos, and Six Thousand (P6,000.00) Pesos as refund for the cost of his
plane ticket;
3. The amount of NT$174,048.00 to EMMANUEL
DEMILLO covering the underpayment of monthly salaries for the period of four
(4) months, salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract and refund of
the unauthorized salary deduction, Sixty Five Thousand (P65,000.00)
Pesos as refund of the placement fee and guaranty fee less Five Thousand (P5,000.00)
Pesos, and Six Thousand (P6,000.00) Pesos as refund for the cost of his
plane ticket;
4. The amount of NT$172,560.00 to NICZON CRUZ
covering the underpayment of monthly salaries for the period of four (4)
months, salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract and refund of the
unauthorized salary deduction, Sixty Five Thousand (P65,000.00) Pesos as
refund for the placement fee and guaranty fee less Five Thousand (P5,000.00)
Pesos, and Six Thousand (P6,000.00) Pesos as refund for the cost of his
plane ticket;
5. The amount of NT$152,560.00 to PEPITO
MANGLICMOT covering the underpayment of monthly salaries for the period of four
(4) months, salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract and refund of
the unauthorized salary deduction, Sixty Five Thousand (P65,000.00)
Pesos as refund of the placement fee and guaranty fee less Five Thousand (P5,000.00)
Pesos, and Six Thousand (P6,000.00) Pesos as refund for the cost of his
plane ticket;
6. The amount of NT$65,280.00 to DANIEL DUMLAO
covering the underpayment of monthly salaries for the period of four (4)
months, salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract and refund of the
unauthorized salary deduction, Sixty Five Thousand (P65,000.00) Pesos as
refund of the placement fee and guaranty fee less Five Thousand (P5,000.00)
Pesos, and Six Thousand (P6,000.00) Pesos as refund for the cost of his
plane ticket;
7. The amount of NT$156,120.00 to ALLAN ARANES
covering the underpayment of monthly salaries for the period of four (4)
months, salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract and refund of the
unauthorized salary deduction, Sixty Five Thousand (P65,000.00) Pesos as
refund of the placement fee and guaranty fee less Five Thousand (P5,000.00)
Pesos, and Six Thousand (P6,000.00) Pesos as refund for the cost of his
plane ticket;
8. The amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00)
Pesos each as moral damages;
9. Attorney’s fees and litigation expenses
equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award.
SO
ORDERED.[5]
Dissatisfied,
Sameer appealed to the NLRC alleging, among others, that the Labor Arbiter
committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to decide the third-party
complaint, to its damage and prejudice, insisting that it should have been
absolved of any and all liabilities pertaining to the claims of
On
January 24, 2001, the NLRC promulgated its Decision,[6]
the dispositive portion of which reads—
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one
entered absolving SAMEER Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. from its liabilities
in view of the transfer of accreditation to ASBT Management Services, Inc. and
ordering the latter to pay the following:
1. Danilo Balcita –
P44,640.00 – representing
his salary for the unexpired portion of the contract
P19,880.00 – representing
refund of his placement fee
2. Nicson Cruz
P44,640.00 – representing
his salary for the unexpired portion of the contract
P19,880.00 – representing
refund of his placement fee
3. Pepito Manglicmot
P44,640.00 – representing
his salary for the unexpired portion of the contract
P19,980.00 – representing
refund of his placement fee
4. Lord Nelson Santos
P44,640.00 – representing
his salary for the unexpired portion of the contract
P19,880.00 – representing
refund of his placement fee
All
other claims are dismissed for want of legal and factual basis.
SO
ORDERED.[7]
Aggrieved,
ASBT moved for reconsideration. The NLRC
denied the motion for lack of merit.
ASBT
elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court. However, in a Resolution[8] dated
June 19, 2001, the Court of Appeals denied due course and dismissed ASBT’s
petition on the ground that the attached Verification and Certification of
Non-Forum Shopping was signed by Mildred R. Santos as President of ASBT without
any proof of authority to sign for and bind ASBT in the proceedings.
ASBT
filed a motion for reconsideration of the June 19, 2001 Resolution, submitting
therewith the necessary board resolution authorizing corporate president
Mildred R. Santos to represent ASBT before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court granted the motion and
reinstated the petition.
In
its December 10, 2001 Decision, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of
ASBT. The decretal portion of the
Decision reads—
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision and resolution of the
public respondent NLRC are SET ASIDE. Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. is
hereby ordered to pay the following to:
1. Danilo Balcita – a). P44,640.00,
representing his salary for the unexpired portion of the contract; b). P19,880.00,
representing refund of his placement.
2. Nicson Cruz – a). P44,640.00,
representing his salary for the unexpired portion of the contract; b). P19,880.00,
representing refund of his placement fee.
3. Pepito Manglicmot – a). P44,640.00,
representing his salary for the unexpired portion of the contract; b). P19,880,00,
representing refund of his placement fee.
4. Lord Nelson Santos – a). P44,640.00,
representing his salary for the unexpired portion of the contract; b). P19,880.00,
representing refund of his placement fee.
All other claims are DISMISSED for want of legal and factual basis.
SO ORDERED.[9]
In
ruling against Sameer, the Court of Appeals considered the following factual
circumstances: (1) Sameer admitted that it hired and deployed
Sameer, thus, moved to reconsider the
December 10, 2001 Decision; but the Court of Appeals denied the same in its
March 12, 2002 Resolution. Hence, this
petition.
The petition should be denied for utter
want of merit.
First. Sameer contends that both the June 6, 2001
Petition and the July 5, 2001 Motion for Reconsideration filed by ASBT before
the Court of Appeals were signed by Mildred Santos, as corporate president, who
is not a member of the Bar. As such,
Sameer argues that both the Petition and the Motion for Reconsideration should
be considered unsigned pleadings which produce no legal effect, pursuant to the
last paragraph of Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
We disagree. Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure provides—
SEC. 3. Signature
and address.—Every pleading must be signed by the party or counsel representing him, stating in either case
his address which should not be a post office box.
The signature of counsel constitutes a
certificate by him that he has read the pleading; that to the best of his
knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it; and that
it is not interposed for delay.
An unsigned pleading produces no legal
effect. However, the court ay, in its
discretion, allow such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the
same was due to mere inadvertence and not intended for delay. Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned
pleading, or signs a pleading in violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous
or indecent matter therein, or fails to promptly report to the court a change
of his address, shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action. (Emphasis supplied.)
Obviously,
the rule allows the pleadings to be signed by either the party to the case or
the counsel representing that party. In
this case, ASBT, as petitioner, opted to sign its petition and its motion for
reconsideration in its own behalf, through its corporate president, Mildred R.
Santos, who was duly authorized by ASBT’s Board of Directors to represent the
company in prosecuting this case.
Therefore, the said pleadings cannot be considered unsigned and without
any legal effect.
Second.
Sameer also submits that ASBT violated the prohibition against forum
shopping. It claims that the transfer of
CA-G.R. SP No. 65068 from the Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals—which initially
denied due course and dismissed the petition then reinstated the same (upon
proof that Mildred R. Santos as duly authorized) in the Former Fourth Division,
which gave due course to and granted the petition—was actually an act of forum
shopping. Sameer posits that the grant
of ASBT’s July 5, 2001 motion for reconsideration by the Seventh Division, which
reinstated the dismissed petition, in effect gave rise to a new petition.
The
argument is sadly misplaced. Forum
shopping is defined as an act of a party, against whom an adverse judgment or
order has been rendered in one forum, of seeking and possibly getting a
favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special civil
action for certiorari. It may also be the institution of two or more
actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one
or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[10] There is forum shopping where the elements of
litis pendentia are present, namely:
(a) there is identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the
same interest in both actions; (b) there is identity of rights asserted and
relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same set of facts; and (c)
the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment
rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would
amount to res judicata in the other.[11] It is expressly prohibited by this Court
because it trifles with and abuses court processes, degrades the administration
of justice, and congests court dockets.
A willful and deliberate violation of the rule against forum shopping is
a ground for summary dismissal of the case, and may also constitute direct
contempt.[12]
In
this case, there is clearly no forum shopping committed by ASBT. The July 5, 2001 motion it filed praying for
reconsideration of the June 19, 2001 Resolution of the Court of Appeals,
dismissing the petition on the technical ground of lack of proof of the
authority of ASBT President Mildred R. Santos to bind the corporation in its
appeal, is simply what it is, a motion for reconsideration. Sameer cannot insist that it be treated as a
new petition just to make it fit the definition of forum shopping in an attempt
to evade liability to pay the amounts awarded to
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
The assailed December 10, 2001 Decision and the March 12, 2002
Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. de los Santos (deceased) with Associate Justices Eubulo G. Verzola (deceased) and Rodrigo V. Cosico (retired), concurring; rollo, pp. 8-25.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Philippine Islands Corporation for Tourism Development, Inc. v. Victorias Milling Company, Inc., G.R. No. 167674, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 561, 569.
[11] Tegimenta Chemical Phils. v. Buensalida, G.R. No. 176466, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 670, 679.
[12] Tapuz v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 182484, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 768, 782.