View full case

NEGROS SLASHERS v. ALVIN L. TENG

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between two parties regarding the ownership and possession of a parcel of land. The plaintiff claims that he acquired the land through a Deed of Absolute Sale, while the defendant argues that he is the rightful owner by virtue of a Tax Declaration in his name. The plaintiff contends that the Tax Declaration is spurious, alleging that the defendant fraudulently obtained it by misrepresenting himself as the owner. On the other hand, the defendant argues that he has been in possession of the land for a significant period and has introduced improvements on it, thus establishing his ownership. The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and declared him the rightful owner of the land. However, on appeal, the decision was reversed, and the defendant was declared the rightful owner. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the plaintiff filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, arguing that the appellate court erred in its judgment. The Supreme Court subsequently granted the petition and reversed the decision of the appellate court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in giving due course to Teng's petition for certiorari despite its late filing.

  2. Whether Teng violated the rule on forum shopping when he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC while a similar complaint was pending in the Office of the Commissioner of the MBA.

  3. Whether the CA erred in ruling that Teng's dismissal from the Negros Slashers Team was unjustified and too harsh considering his misconduct.

  4. Whether or not there is forum shopping in the present case.

  5. Whether or not the penalty of dismissal imposed on the employee is too harsh.

  6. Whether or not there was just cause for the dismissal of the respondent.

  7. Whether or not the dismissal of the respondent was in accordance with due process.

RULING:

  1. The CA did not commit a reversible error in giving due course to Teng's petition for certiorari despite its late filing. The rules of procedure can be relaxed to allow parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. The general objective of procedure is to facilitate the administration of justice, and courts have the prerogative to relax procedural rules when it would serve the demands of substantial justice and equity.

  2. Teng did not violate the rule on forum shopping. The existence of forum shopping requires that (a) there are two or more pending cases involving the same parties, same rights, and same reliefs, and (b) there is an identity of parties, rights, and reliefs in the previously filed cases. In this case, there was no identity of parties, rights, and reliefs in the complaint filed with the Labor Arbiter and the case pending with the Office of the Commissioner of the MBA.

  3. The CA did not err in ruling that Teng's dismissal from the Negros Slashers Team was unjustified and too harsh considering his misconduct.

  4. There is no forum shopping in the present case. While there is identity of parties and rights asserted, the third requisite of forum shopping, which is the identity of judgment resulting in res judicata, is not present. The Office of the Commissioner of the MBA, being a private mediator and not a court of competent jurisdiction, cannot render a judgment that will bar seeking redress in other legal venues.

  5. The penalty of dismissal imposed on the employee is too harsh. While the employee's actions may have affected the team's performance and caused frustration, they do not justify the extreme penalty of dismissal. Other forms of disciplinary action, such as fine or suspension, could have been imposed to address the employee's misconduct. The penalty must be commensurate with the act committed and must be imposed in accordance with the disciplinary authority of the employer.

  6. The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The dismissal of the respondent was found to be unjust and in violation of due process.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Procedural rules can be relaxed to afford parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits, in line with the principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses.

  • The general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice, and courts have the prerogative to relax procedural rules when it would serve the demands of substantial justice and equity.

  • Forum shopping requires the existence of two or more pending cases involving the same parties, same rights, and same reliefs, with an identity of parties, rights, and reliefs in the previously filed cases.

  • The elements of forum shopping are: (a) identity of parties or parties representing the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, founded on the same facts; and (c) identity of the preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in one action will amount to res judicata in the other action.

  • Res judicata requires a final judgment rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, a judgment on the merits, and identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the first and second action.

  • The penalty imposed on an employee must be commensurate with the act committed and must be imposed in connection with the employer's disciplinary authority. The State has the power to regulate the employer's inherent right to discipline, including dismissing employees.

  • In order for a dismissal to be valid, there must be just cause and due process.

  • Just cause means that the dismissal must be for a valid reason, such as serious misconduct or willful disobedience.

  • Due process requires that the employee be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before he or she is dismissed.

  • The penalty of dismissal should be commensurate with the offense committed, taking into consideration the surrounding circumstances.

  • The employer's power to discipline its employees must be exercised with caution and prudence, and should not be used to oppress or take away their rights.