FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 206452. June 19, 2019.]
ENRICO V. CASTULO, petitioner, vs.ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION/MR. EUGENIO LOPEZ III, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 19, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 206452 (ENRICO V. CASTULO, Petitioner, v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION/MR. EUGENIO LOPEZ III, Respondents.) — After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the present petition for failure of the petitioners to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in promulgating its decision and resolution on September 26, 2012 1 and on February 28, 2013, 2 respectively, whereby the CA held that the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioner's complaint.
The petitioner maintained that the CA erred in affirming the dismissal of his complaint on the ground of litis pendencia; that his complaint can neither constitute litis pendentia nor res judicata since the issue of regularization raised in the other complaint was distinct from his present complaint which concerned with the issue of constructive dismissal. HTcADC
We disagree.
The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other. 3
We find all the above elements to be present in this case. The petitioner's complaint for constructive dismissal substantially hinged on the presence of an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and respondent corporation, which essentially was the main issue in the earlier case for regularization involving the same parties. Clearly, the CA did not err in upholding the dismissal of the case on the basis of litis pendencia.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the present petition and AFFIRMS the assailed decision and resolution promulgated by the Court of Appeals on September 26, 2012 and on February 28, 2013, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP NO. 121617. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."Jardeleza, J., no part due to prior action as Solicitor General; Leonen, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated June 17, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 795-809; penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and concurred in by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias.
2.Id. at 495-496.
3.Fontana Development Corp. v. Vukasinovic, G.R. No. 222424, September 21, 2016, 804 SCRA 153, 164-165.