G.R. No. 187122 - NEGROS SLASHERS, INC., RODOLFO C. ALVAREZ AND VICENTE TAN, VS. ALVIN L. TENG.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the dismissal of complainant illegal and respondents Negros Slashers, Inc. are hereby ordered to PAY complainant the total sum of TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND (P2,530,000.00) PESOS representing complainants unpaid salaries, separation pay and attorneys fee, the award to be deposited with this Office within ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision. All other claims are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . [14] The case was then appealed to the NLRC. On September 10, 2004, the NLRC issued a Decision setting aside the July 16, 2002 Decision of the Labor Arbiter and entering a new one dismissing the complaint for being premature since the arbitration proceedings before the Commissioner of the MBA were still pending when Teng filed his complaint for illegal dismissal. The dispositive portion of the NLRC Decision reads: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter a quo is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE . A new one is entered, dismissing the instant case for being premature. SO ORDERED . [15] Teng filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied for being filed beyond the ten-day reglementary period provided for in Section 15, [16] Rule VII of the NLRC Rules of Procedure. Aggrieved, Teng filed a petition for certiorari with the CA assailing the NLRC Decision dated September 10, 2004 and the Resolution dated March 21, 2005 denying his motion for reconsideration. On September 17, 2008 the CA rendered the assailed Decision setting aside the September 10, 2004 Decision and March 21, 2005 Resolution of the NLRC and reinstating with modification the Labor Arbiters Decision. The CA reinstated the findings of the Labor Arbiter that Teng was illegally dismissed because the grounds relied upon by petitioners were not enough to merit the supreme penalty of dismissal. The CA held that there was no serious misconduct or willful disobedience or insubordination on Tengs part. On the issue of jurisdiction, the CA ruled that the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction over the case notwithstanding the pendency of arbitration proceedings in the Office of the Commissioner of the MBA. Petitioners sought reconsideration of the above ruling, but their motion was denied by the CA in a Resolution [17] dated February 11, 2009. Petitioners now come to this Court assailing the Decision dated September 17, 2008 and Resolution dated February 11, 2009 of the CA. Firstly, petitioners argue that respondent Teng and his counsel committed a blatant violation of the rule against forum shopping. Petitioners aver that on July 28, 2001, Teng filed a complaint before the MBA pursuant to the voluntary arbitration provision of the Uniform Players Contract he executed with Negros Slashers, Inc. During the pendency of said complaint, Teng filed another complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter. It is petitioners position that Teng lied by certifying unde