SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND GENUINE LABOR ORGANIZATION OF WORKERS IN HOTEL RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES (GLOWH…

May the First Division of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) order the reinstatement of employees dismissed for leading and/or
participating in an illegal strike, in an injunction case^[1] which
is separate and distinct from the illegal strike case^[2]
against them and which is pending appeal?

In this instant petition for certiorari and prohibition,
the answer to the main issue stated above determines whether or not the public
respondent-NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion in issuing such an order.^[3]

The petitioner Silahis International Hotel Inc. is the employer
of private respondent employees. Respondent-Union Genuine Labor Organization
of Workers in Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries (GLOWHRAIN)-Silahis
International Hotel Chapter, is the exclusive bargaining representative of the
rank-and-file employees in the company.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

On November 16, 1990, respondent-Union filed a notice of strike
against petitioner-Silahis Hotel for unfair labor practices: violation of CBA, dismissal of union
officers/members, mass termination/illegal lockout, and union busting.^[4]

On the same day, private respondents staged a strike, picketing
and allegedly obstructing the ingress to and egress from the hotel.^[5]

On November 28, 1990, the Secretary of Labor and Employment
assumed jurisdiction and issued an order certifying the dispute to the NLRC for
consolidation with an earlier
case and for all striking employees to return to work.^[6]
Accordingly, on November 29, 1990, the employees ended the strike and returned
to work.

On February 1, 1991, petitioner Silahis Hotel filed a complaint
for illegal strike (NLRC NCR Case No. 02-00717-91) against respondent-Union,
fourteen (14) named employees representing the union officers and John Does and
Jane Does representing all the other employees who joined the strike.^[7]

In a decision dated February 12, 1992, Labor Arbiter Cornelio L.
Linsangan found private respondents guilty of illegal strike and declared the
union officers to have lost and forfeited their employment.^[8]

On February 14, 1992, the day the private respondents learned of
the decision, petitioner-Silahis Hotel barred them from entering the hotel and
terminated their services. Respondent-Union and private respondent-employees filed their appeal on
February 19, 1992, well within the ten-day period for perfection of appeal
provided by law.^[9]

And on February 27, 1992, herein private respondents filed a Very
Urgent Petition^[10]
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction under Art. 218
(e) of the Labor Code, not in
the illegal strike case then on appeal,^[11] but
as NLRC NCR IC No. 00-0235-92. In that
petition, respondents (petitioners therein) allege that petitioner-Silahis
Hotel terminated the employment of respondents on February 14, 1992 even before
the illegal strike decision^[12] became
final and executory and that most of the employees terminated were not union
officers nor proved to be participants in the strike. The termination of respondents’ employment would cause grave or
irreparable injury which can be corrected by the writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction.

The first division of the NLRC issued, in a Minute Resolution, an
order in favor of respondents dated March 11, 1992, the dispositive part of
which reads:

“Wherefore, weighing the relative positions of the parties
vis-a-vis the equitable reliefs available, we hereby rule subject to
petitioners’ posting of a bond of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos to answer
for whatever liability the respondent may suffer should it appear that they are
not entitled to the reliefs hereby granted, directing the respondent
company: (1) to reinstate either
physically or on payroll, at respondent’s option, to reinstate (sic) Rogelio M.
Soluta, Joselito A Santos, Florentino P. Matilla, Edna B. Dacanay, Dennis C.
Cosico, Alfredo S. Bautista and Richard T. Galigo; and (2) to reinstate, with
full backwages, all the other petitioners to their positions held as of
February 14, 1992. Labor Arbiter Adolfo
C. Babiano is hereby directed to hear the incident of temporary and/or
permanent injunction, and to submit a report and recommendation thereon within
ten (10) days from the conclusion of the hearing.

This Order shall be effective for a period of only twenty (20) days
from petitioners’ submission of the required bond.”^[13]

On March 16, 1992, petitioner-Silahis Hotel filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Order above, but the same was not and has not been acted
upon.

Petitioner-Silahis Hotel assails this Order and on March 25,
1992, filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition with
prayer for temporary restraining order. The following day, we issued a temporary restraining order continuing
until further orders from the Court, enjoining the NLRC from enforcing the
Order dated March 11, 1992 in NLRC NCR Case NO. 00-0235-92 and from further proceeding
with aforesaid case.^[14]

Petitioner contends that:

“THE RESPONDENT NLRC ACTED WITHOUT OR
IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ORDERING THE
REINSTATEMENT OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS, CONSIDERING THAT:

A. The questioned Order illegally confers a
relief on private respondents, in violation of petitioner’s right to due
process. Injunction is not the
appropriate remedy to order the reinstatement of private respondents.

B. The questioned Order operates as an
adjudication on the merits of private respondents’ appeal from the Labor
Arbiter’s decision, which raises the
issue as to the scope of the
declaration.

C. Respondents, by knowingly filing the injunction case during the pendency
of the appeal in the illegal strike case are guilty of forum-shopping.

D. The questioned order was
issued in clear and palpable violation of Art. 218 of the Labor Code.”^[15]

The resolution of the instant petition depends on whether public
respondent-NLRC can validly entertain the “Very Urgent Petition”^[16]
filed by respondents and issue the Order^[17]
reinstating the respondents, assailed by petitioner.

The appeal from the decision of the labor arbiter in the illegal
strike case (NLRC NCR Case No. 02-00717-91) was pending when respondents filed
its “Very Urgent Petition” as NLRC IC No. 00-0235-92.

Petitioner claims that filing the “Very Urgent
Petition” as another injunction case and not with the appealed case is
“forum-shopping” and cannot be done for such practice has long been
condemned as “contrary to the interest of justice.”^[18]
It further argues that the issue of respondents’ employment status and/or
dismissal is pending in the appealed strike case and that respondents were
dismissed precisely because of said illegal strike conducted by them. Hence, they (respondents) cannot seek relief
from the effects of the dismissal in an entirely new suit (the injunction
case).^[19]

On the other hand, private respondents contend that they are not
guilty of forum-shopping because the issues involved in the appealed case and
the injunction case are different. They
claim that the issues in the appealed illegal strike case are whether the
finding of illegal strike and the declaration that the union officers have lost
and forfeited their employment are correct. And the issue in the injunction case, which arose after the decision of
the labor arbiter, is whether this decision can be executed or implemented by
the petitioner even if the same was not final and executory.^[20]

The labor arbiter ruled that the strike staged by the respondents
was illegal. After receiving notice of a favorable decision,
petitioner-hotel dismissed the respondent-employees for having participated in
this illegal strike. Respondents then
filed its appeal from this decision. And
within the same month, the respondents filed their petition for injunction as a
new injunction case.

It is not very difficult to see that the issues in these two
cases are interrelated. Because of this
relevant connection, the relief prayed for by the respondents, i.e.,
injunction restraining the petitioner from dismissing them, could have been
properly granted or denied in the case on appeal. There was in fact no reason for the respondents to file a new
injunction case before the same agency.

By doing this, they effectively sought another forum to grant
them relief. The Court cannot but
proscribe this as a species of forum shopping.

In Villanueva v. Adre,^[21] we
said that:

“There is forum shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse
opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal
or certiorari) in another. The
principle applies not only with respect to suits filed in the courts but also
in connection with litigations commenced in the courts while an administrative
proceeding is pending, as in this case, in order to defeat administrative
processes and in anticipation of an unfavorable administrative ruling and a
favorable court ruling.”^[22]

And
in Gabriel v. Court of Appeals,^[23]
we added that “filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the
court’s processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of
justice and will be punished as
contempt of court.”^[24]

We have consistently ruled that a party should not be allowed to
pursue simultaneous remedies in two different
forums. Although most of the cases we
have ruled upon regarding forum shopping involved petitions in the courts and
administrative agencies,^[25] the
rule prohibiting it applies equally to multiple petitions in the same tribunal
or agency.

By filing another petition involving the same essential facts and
circumstances in the same agency, as in this case where respondents filed their
appeal and injunction case separately in the NLRC, respondents approached two
different fora in order to increase their chances of obtaining a favorable
decision or action. This practice
cannot be tolerated and should be condemned.

Public respondent-NLRC erred when it entertained the separate
injunction case filed by respondents. Moreover, it should have consolidated the petition for injunction with
the case already on appeal, for the fact of appeal and the attendant
circumstances were stated in the petition and even acknowledged in the
questioned Resolution of the NLRC.^[26]

While we find that the action taken by the respondents was
ill-suited however, this does not mean that the petitioner-hotel’s act of
dismissing respondent-employees before the decision of the labor arbiter became
final and executory should be sanctioned.

Despite our proscription against forum shopping, the respondents
should be allowed to have recourse to the processes of law and to seek relief
from their dismissal as this allowance will better serve the ends of
justice. The propriety of the hotel’s act
of dismissing the respondents and the resulting consequences may still be
passed upon, in conjunction with the appealed case after filing a proper
petition therein.

However, the culpability of respondents’ counsel, who are charged
with the knowledge of the law and with the duty of assisting in the
administration of justice, is clearly manifest. Because of the cunning practice they employed, respondents’
lawyers, Attys. Potenciano A. Flores, Jr. and A.E. Dacanay are hereby warned
and admonished to be more circumspect in their professional concerns otherwise
a penalty more severe shall befall them for similar acts.

The other issues raised by petitioner no longer bear any
significance after the resolution of the main problem above. No further discussion regarding them will
therefore be made.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby
GRANTED and the ruling of the
respondent National Labor Relations Commission is hereby set aside. The temporary restraining order dated March
26, 1992 is made permanent. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Puno, JJ.,
concur.

^[1]
NLRC IC No. 000235-92, GLOWHRAIN et. al. v. Silahis International Hotel
Inc., filed February 27, 1991.

^[2]
NLRC NCR Case No. 02-00717-91, Silahis International Hotel Inc, v.
GLOWHRAIN, Rogelio M. Soluta, et. al.

^[3]
Dated March 11, 1992; Rollo, p.
37.

^[4]
NCMB-NCR-NS-11- 927-90.

^[5]
Petition, pp. 5-6; Rollo, pp.
5-6.

^[6]
Order of the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, Rollo, pp. 37-39.

^[7]
Rollo, pp. 40-50.

^[8]
Decision of the Labor Arbiter, p. 11; Rollo,
p. 57-68.

^[9]
Art. 223 of the Labor Code provides that the decision is “final and
executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten
(10) calendar days from receipt of such decision xxx.”

^[10]
Rollo, p. 114.

^[11]
NLRC NCR Case No. 02-00717-91.

^[12]
Supra, note 7.

^[13]
Decision of the NLRC, First Division, pp. 3-4; Rollo, 34-35.

^[14]
Rollo, pp. 92-93.

^[15]
Petition, p. 9; Rollo, p. 9.

^[16]
Rollo, p. 114.

^[17]
Rollo, p. 32.

^[18]
Petition, p. 17, citing Tan v. CA 199 SCRA 212 and other cases; Rollo,
p.17.

^[19]
Id., p. 18.

^[20]
Comment, p. 11; Rollo, p.
105.

^[21]
172 SCRA 876, 882 (1989).

^[22]
Id., at 882.

^[23]
72 SCRA 273 (1976).

^[24]
Id., at 275.

^[25]
For example Gabriel v. CA 72
SCRA 275; Buan v. Lopez, 145 SCRA 34 (1986); Villanueva v. Adre,
172 SCRA 876 (1989); GSIS v. Sandiganbayan 191 SCRA 655 (1990); New
Pangasinan Review Inc. v. NLRC, 196 SCRA 55 (1991); Benguet Electric
Cooperative Inc. v. National Electrification Administration, 193 SCRA
250 (1991).

^[26]
Rollo, p. 32.