Custodio v. Premier Shelter Products, Inc.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 245873. August 8, 2022.]

ENGR. DANILO E. CUSTODIO, petitioner, vs.PREMIER SHELTER PRODUCTS, INC., *respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 8, 2022which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 245873 (Engr. Danilo E. Custodio v. Premier Shelter Products, Inc.). — This Court resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Danilo L. Custodio (Custodio) seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated June 21, 2018 and the Resolution 3 dated December 18, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 08049-MIN. The CA earlier ruled that the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) gravely abused its discretion in taking cognizance of the verified petition filed by Custodio.

On November 14, 2014, Custodio filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal against Premier Shelter Products, Inc. (Premier Shelter). He alleged that, on January 2, 2012, he was employed by Premier Sheller as a branch manager for its Cagayan de Oro station. He was offered a monthly compensation of P50,000.00 and was promised a company vehicle and gas allowance. However, Premier Shelter failed to provide him with the company vehicle and gas allowance despite follow-ups. Thus, he was forced to use his personal car and spend for gasoline. He was also the only branch manager who was not given these benefits. 4

Custodio further alleged that, on October 8, 2014, he learned that a subordinate, Engr. Ernie Nini, was instructed by the Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer, Arlie Chua (Chua), to attend a business planning session for all of the company's branch managers. Thinking it was unusual that it was not him who was made to attend the seminar, Custodio called up Chua to clarify the matter. Chua told him that due to loss of trust and confidence, the management decided to exclude him from the business planning session. Custodio was then directed to tender his resignation immediately and to turn over all the company belongings in his possession. 5 HEITAD

According to Custodio, he and his counsel went to Premier Shelter's office on October 20, 2014 to settle the issues with the management, but they were refused entry. This prompted him to file the complaint for illegal dismissal. 6

For its part, Premier Shelter denied dismissing Custodio from employment. It argued that it was Custodio who abandoned his work. On October 8, 2014, when Custodio called Chua to ask why he was not invited to the business planning session, he was told that the management had different plans for him and the other branch managers. Instead of accepting this explanation, Custodio expressed his anger and left all his company-issued belongings to the company's administrative head the following day. He also left a handwritten note requesting that his final pay be sent to his provincial address. Custodio no longer reported for work after that incident. Thus, on October 20, 2014, Premier Shelter issued a memorandum to Custodio, informing him that he was deemed to have voluntarily severed his employment with the company. 7

In the Decision 8 dated April 22, 2015, the Labor Arbiter (LA) of the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch No. 10, Cagayan de Oro City dismissed Custodio's complaint for lack of merit. The LA nevertheless ordered Premier Shelter to pay Custodio his last pay and proportionate 13th month pay. 9

On appeal of Custodio, the NLRC, in its Resolution 10 dated October 30, 2015, modified the ruling of the LA and partially granted the complaint. It ordered Custodio to report back to work and for Premier Shelter to accept him and reinstate him to his former position or one that is equivalent in rank or pay, if the same is no longer available. 11

Custodio and Premier Shelter filed their respective Motions for Reconsideration, but both were denied by the NLRC in its Resolution 12 dated April 25, 2016. Thus, Custodio filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA, assailing the NLRC Resolutions.

During the pendency of the petition for certiorari, the LA issued a Writ of Execution dated August 23, 2016 and 1st Updated Writ of Execution 13 dated September 22, 2016 upon motion of Custodio. Subsequently, on October 4, 2016, Premier Shelter filed a Manifestation and Motion stating that a memorandum was served on Custodio informing him that since his previous position in Cagayan de Oro City had been taken over by someone, he was being reassigned to the station in Lucena City. Arguing that the reassignment will be difficult, if not impossible for him, Custodio filed a Motion for Payment of Salaries, Wages, & Other Benefits 14 dated September 5, 2016 and Motion to Declare [Premier Shelter] in Contempt of Court 15 dated October 12, 2016 before the LA. Both motions were denied by the LA in its Order dated November 22, 2016, finding that Custodio's reassignment in Lucena City is sufficient compliance with the writ of execution issued regarding his reinstatement to work. 16

Aggrieved, Custodio filed before the NLRC a Verified Petition under Rule XII of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure. He argued that the LA committed grave abuse of discretion and serious errors in findings of fact in issuing the Order dated November 22, 2016. 17

In a Resolution 18 dated February 20, 2017, the NLRC partially granted Custodio's Verified Petition and modified the Order dated November 22, 2016. The NLRC did not give credence to Premier Shelter's assertion that Custodio cannot be reinstated to his previous position in Cagayan de Oro City. It noted that the position was, in fact, still available, albeit it is now being held by another. For the NLRC, requiring Custodio to report in Lucena City despite the availability of the position in Cagayan de Oro City runs contrary to the writ of execution which states that he should be reinstated to his former position or one that is equivalent in rank or pay, if the same is no longer available. It ordered Premier Shelter to reinstate Custodio to his former position as branch manager in Cagayan de Oro City station and to pay him his salaries pending his reinstatement. 19

This prompted Premier Shelter to file a Petition for Certiorari20 dated March 21, 2017 before the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in taking cognizance of Custodio's Verified Petition despite the pendency of his Petition for Certiorari before the CA questioning the NLRC Resolutions dated October 30, 2015 and April 25, 2016. According to Premier Shelter, the NLRC should have dismissed the Verified Petition on the ground of forum shopping. 21

Meanwhile, the CA rendered its Decision 22 dated August 11, 2017 dismissing Custodio's petition for certiorari and affirming the ruling of the LA and the NLRC that he was not illegally dismissed. It upheld the findings of the labor tribunals that Custodio failed to establish that he was indeed dismissed by Premier Shelter. According to the CA, the present controversy was brought about only by a simple misunderstanding between the employee and the employer which was made complicated by a "wounded ego and accumulated resentments." 23 The CA agreed with the NLRC that Custodio did not abandon his job for failure of Premier Shelter to adduce substantial evidence regarding the intention of Custodio to sever his employment. Ultimately, the CA affirmed the NLRC's order for Custodio to report back to work and for Premier Shelter to accept him and reinstate him to his former position or one that is equivalent in rank or pay, if the same is no longer available. 24

In the now assailed Decision 25 dated June 21, 2018, the CA granted Premier Shelter's petition for certiorari. It ruled that Custodio was guilty of forum shopping when he filed the Verified Petition before the NLRC, while his petition for certiorari before the CA was still pending. According to the CA, the Verified Petition and the petition for certiorari prayed for essentially the same reliefs. It held that Custodio could have just filed a supplemental pleading to his petition for certiorari before the CA to raise the issues he raised in his Verified Petition. Accordingly, the CA ordered the dismissal of the Verified Petition before the NLRC. 26 ATICcS

Hence, this petition.

Custodio argues that he is not guilty of forum shopping in availing both petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and the extraordinary remedy of verified petition under Section 1, Rule XII of the NLRC Rules of Procedure. He contends that what was assailed in the petition for certiorari before the CA is the NLRC's finding that he was not illegally dismissed and thus not entitled to backwages. On the other hand, what was questioned in the extraordinary remedy of verified petition is the LA's order during the execution proceedings that his reassignment to Lucena City is sufficient compliance with the NLRC's order of reinstatement. These two actions, he avers, are distinct remedies that raised completely separate different issues and prayed for different reliefs. 27

In its Comment 28 dated September 4, 2019, Premier Shelter insists that Custodio is guilty of forum shopping. It counters that the petition for certiorari and the extraordinary remedy of verified petition arose from the same cause of action, that is, the supposed illegal dismissal of Custodio. It also asserts that both actions prayed for essentially the same reliefs — the payment of salaries, wages, and other benefits. 29

The issue for this Court's resolution is whether the CA correctly held that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the Verified Petition filed by Custodio.

The petition is granted.

Preliminarily, the purpose of certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is only to determine whether the public respondent acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. 30 In this regard —

"[w]ithout jurisdiction" means that the court acted with absolute lack of authority. There is "excess of jurisdiction" when the court transcends its power or acts without any statutory authority. "Grave abuse of discretion" implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; in other words, power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. 31

Indeed, the writ of certiorari lies to keep an inferior court "within the bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction." 32 In the present case, petitioner assails the CA's ruling that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in taking cognizance of his Verified Petition and in failing to dismiss the same on the ground of forum shopping.

Forum shopping is committed by "a party [who] repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court," 33 on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition or increase a party's chances of obtaining a favorable decision or action. 34 It is considered malpractice since it causes clogging of court dockets, places undue burden on the financial and human resources of the judiciary, and trifles with and mocks judicial processes, thereby adversely affecting the administration of justice. 35 It is now settled that the prohibition against forum shopping applies in suits filed before the courts and administrative agencies, and even to multiple petitions filed before the same tribunal or agency. 36

Jurisprudence has enumerated three ways by which a party can commit forum shopping, thus: TIADCc

(1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia), (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata). 37

To recall, the NLRC affirmed the LA's ruling that petitioner was not illegally dismissed by respondent and should therefore be reinstated to his former position. This prompted petitioner to file a petition for certiorari before the CA, ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in deciding so. While the petition for certiorari was pending, petitioner moved for the execution of the NLRC's order for reinstatement, which was duly approved by the LA. When petitioner reported for work, however, he was informed by respondent that inasmuch as his previous position in the Cagayan de Oro City branch has been already filled by someone, he will be assigned to the branch in Lucena City for a similar position. The assignment to Lucena City was then questioned before the LA by petitioner, who argued that the same is contrary to the order of the NLRC to reinstate him to his "former position." When the LA ruled otherwise and held that the assignment to Lucena City was sufficient compliance with the order of reinstatement, Custodio filed his Verified Petition before the NLRC to reverse the LA's orders.

Respondent insists that petitioner is guilty of forum shopping since the petition for certiorari and the extraordinary remedy of verified petition arose from the same cause of action, that is, his supposed illegal dismissal. It asserts that both actions prayed for essentially the same reliefs.

This Court does not agree.

Verily, the determining factor of forum shopping is the existence of a single cause of action, on the basis of which a party files several cases, simultaneously or successively, and with the same or different prayers. What is ultimately sought to be prevented by the rule against forum shopping is the vexation caused by party to courts and parties-litigants in asking different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, thereby creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by different fora on the same issues. 38

In the present case, it cannot be said that the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner before the CA and the verified petition he filed before the NLRC arose from the same cause of action. It should be emphasized that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is premised on grave abuse of discretion and not simply the violation of rights between parties. As extensively discussed by this Court in Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Bacalla, Jr.: 39

Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a "cause of action" as the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. The essential elements of a cause of action are: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the defendant not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of the defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, a Writ of Certiorari under Section 1 of Rule 65 will issue when there is grave abuse of discretion committed by a tribunal, board or officer who in the exercise of its judicial or quasi-judicial functions, has acted without or in excess [of] its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In the instance of grave abuse of discretion, the court may annul or modify the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and grant such incidental reliefs as the law and justice may require.

Verily, a Petition for Certiorari cannot be based on a cause of action. First, the parties involved in such petition would be the petitioner and the tribunal, board or officer who purportedly exceeded its discretion in the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions. In a cause of action, the parties would be the plaintiff and the defendant who violated the right of the former which he (defendant) had the obligation to respect.

Second, a Petition for Certiorari cannot arise from a violation of a right belonging to the petitioner that the tribunal, board or officer has the concomitant obligation to respect. To reiterate, a certiorari writ will only lie when the tribunal, board of officer commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the existence of a cause of action will be the basis of every ordinary civil action. AIDSTE

Third, a Writ of Certiorari results in the annulment or modification of the proceedings. However, the violation of a right of a plaintiff or breach of obligation by the defendant would give rise to a cause of action that will provide the plaintiff with the right to file an action in court for the recovery of damages or other relief.

Finally, a Petition for Certiorari, being a special civil action, may only be availed of when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Meanwhile, a cause of action is the basic requirement in an ordinary civil action. 40

More particularly, in petitions for certiorari filed before it to review the decisions of NLRC in labor cases, the CA "[is] confined only to the determination of whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in deciding the issues brought before it on appeal." 41 To reiterate:

A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It cannot be used for any other purpose, as its function is limited to keeping the inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction.

The supervisory jurisdiction of a court over the issuance of a writ of certiorari cannot be exercised for the purpose of reviewing the intrinsic correctness of a judgment of the lower court — on the basis either of the law or the facts of the case, or of the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision. Even if the findings of the court are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over the case, such correction is normally beyond the province of certiorari. Where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but an error of law or fact — a mistake of judgment — appeal is the remedy. 42

From the foregoing disquisition, it cannot be said that by filing the verified petition before the NLRC while the petition for certiorari before the CA was still pending, petitioner committed forum shopping. To be sure, petitioner could not have raised the issue on the correctness of the LA's orders during the execution proceedings before the CA since it is not a jurisdictional error imputed to the NLRC. Otherwise told, the CA could not have properly ruled on this issue without going against the parameters of its review in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Thus, in assailing the LA's orders during the execution proceedings, petitioner correctly availed of another remedy — a verified petition under Rule XII of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure:

RULE XII

SECTION 1. VERIFIED PETITION. — A party aggrieved by any order or resolution of the Labor Arbiter, including a writ of execution and other orders issued during execution proceedings, may file a verified petition to annul or modify the same. The petition may be accompanied by an application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary or permanent injunction to enjoin the Labor Arbiter, or any person acting under his/her authority, to desist from enforcing said resolution, order or writ.

SECTION 2. GROUNDS. — The petition filed under this Rule may be entertained only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and based on any of the following grounds:

(a) If there is evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter;

(b) If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which, if not corrected, would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the petitioner;

(c) If a party by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence has been prevented from taking an appeal;

(d) If made purely on questions of law; or,

(e) If the order or resolution will cause injustice if not rectified. AaCTcI

SECTION 3. WHEN AND WHERE FILED. — Not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the order or resolution of the Labor Arbiter, the aggrieved party may file a petition with the Commission furnishing a copy thereof to the adverse party.

In Fernandez v. Manila Electric Company, 43 this Court held that the extraordinary remedy of verified petition under Rule XII is the proper remedy to question the adverse orders of the LA in connection with the execution of judgments. 44 We said that this is clear from the provisions of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure which provide that an appeal from the order issued by the LA in execution proceedings is a prohibited pleading. 45

Indeed, petitioner accurately argued that he could not have assailed the LA's orders during the execution proceedings through the petition for certiorari before the CA since there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the course of law, 46 that is, to file a verified petition as an extraordinary remedy under Rule XII of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure.

Considering that the petition for certiorari and the verified petition did not arise from a single cause of action, respondent's claim of forum shopping must fail. The NLRC did not gravely abuse, but in fact, properly exercised its discretion in taking cognizance of the verified petition. The verified petition before the NLRC and the petition for certiorari before the CA can proceed independently of and simultaneously with each other.

Notably, the records indicate that the CA had already dismissed the petition for certiorari in its Decision 47 dated August 11, 2017 and affirmed the ruling of the LA and the NLRC that petitioner was not illegally dismissed. Ultimately, it ordered petitioner to report back to work and for respondent to accept him and reinstate him to his former position or one that is equivalent in rank or pay, if the same is no longer available. 48 Nevertheless, whether that case was further brought for review before this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court or had lapsed into finality, is no longer relevant in the present petition, where the issue is limited to determining whether or not the CA erred in holding that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the Verified Petition filed by petitioner. As discussed above, we rule in the affirmative.

FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 21, 2018 and the Resolution dated December 18, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 08049-MIN are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Resolution dated February 20, 2017 of the National Labor Relations Commission, partially granting the Verified Petition filed by petitioner Danilo E. Custodio, is hereby REINSTATED. Premier Shelter Products, Inc. is ORDERED to REINSTATE Danilo E. Custodio to his former position as branch manager in Cagayan de Oro City station and to pay him his salaries pending his reinstatement.

SO ORDERED." (Lopez, M., J., on official leave)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

* Also referred to as "Premier Shelter Product, Inc." in some parts of the rollo.

1. Rollo, pp. 10-34.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon, with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja (Chairperson) and Oscar V. Badelles, concurring; id. at 48-56.

3. Rollo, pp. 38-39.

4. Id. at 49.

5. Id.

6. Id. 49-50.

7. Id. at 50.

8. Id. at 115-123.

9. Id. at 123.

10. Id. at 126-136.

11. Id. at 136.

12. Id. at 138-142.

13. Id. at 143-144.

14. Id. at 146-149.

15. Id. at 150-152.

16. NLRC Resolution dated February 20, 2017; id. at 106-107.

17. Id. at 108.

18. Id. at 105-112.

19. Id. at 108-111.

20. Id. at 89-103.

21. Id. at 95-101.

22. CA Rollo, pp. 154-162.

23. Id.

24. Id. at 159-162.

25. Rollo, pp. 48-56.

26. Id. at 55-56.

27. Id. at 20-27.

28. Actually captioned "Motion for Extension of Time to File Comment"; id. at 170-188.

29. Id. at 176-177.

30. Dr. Brito v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, 554 Phil. 112, 124 (2007).

31. Madrigal Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation, 479 Phil. 768, 779 (2004). (Citations omitted)

32. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 456 Phil. 755, 784 (2003), citing Silverio v. Court of Appeals, 225 Phil. 459, 472 (1986).

33. Fontana Development Corporation, et al. v. Vukasinovic, 795 Phil. 913, 920 (2016), citing Heirs of Marcelo Sotto v. Palicte, 726 Phil. 651, 653-654 (2014).

34. Heirs of Mampo v. Morada, G.R. No. 214526, November 3, 2020. (Citations omitted)

35. Camuto, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 412 Phil. 467, 474 (2001), citing Progressive Development Corporation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 566, 584 (1999).

36. Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association (ARBA), et al. v. Fil-Estate Properties, Inc., 766 Phil. 382, 412 (2015), citing Silahis International Hotel, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 296A Phil. 64, 71 (1993).

37. Chua, et al. v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, et al., 613 Phil. 143, 154 (2009), citing Collantes v. Court of Appeals, 546 Phil. 391, 400 (2007).

38. Municipality of Taguig v. Court of Appeals, 506 Phil. 567, 576 (2005), citing First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals, 322 Phil. 280, 313 (1996).

39. G.R. No. 223404, July 15, 2020.

40. Id. (Emphasis in the original; citations omitted)

41. Bugaoisan v. Owi Group Manila, et al., 825 Phil. 764, 775 (2018).

42. Id. at 774-775. (Emphasis in the original; citations omitted)

43. 834 Phil. 137 (2018).

44. Id. at 145, citing Velasco v. Matsushita Electric Philippines Corporation, G.R. No. 220701, June 6, 2016 (Minute Resolution).

45. Id.

46. Rules of Court, Rule 65, Sec. 1 provides:

SECTION 1. Petition for Certiorari. — When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46. (Emphasis Supplied)

47. CA rollo, pp. 154-162.

48. Id. at 159-162.