G.R. No. 175900 - KAPISANANG PANGKAUNLARAN NG KABABAIHANG POTRERO, INC. AND MILAGROS H. REYES, VS. REMEDIOS BARRENO, LILIBETH AMETIN, DRANREV F. NONAY, FREDERICK D. DIONISIO AND MARITES CASIO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, respondents prayed for the dismissal of the appeal for failure to perfect the same. The Ruling of the NLRC In its Decision [16] dated June 30, 2003, the NLRC set aside the LAs ruling and dismissed respondents complaints. Contrary to the LAs findings, it found respondents guilty of forum shopping in filing the same complaint against petitioners in two (2) fora , namely the DOLE and the NLRC. Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration [17] dated August 19, 2003 questioning the aforementioned decision but the same was denied in the NLRCs Resolution [18] dated October 30, 2003. Ruling of the CA In its Decision [19] dated July 31, 2006, the CA found no grave abuse of discretion to have been committed by the NLRC in giving due course to the appeal and in setting aside the LAs ruling. The CA agreed with the NLRC that respondents committed forum shopping in seeking their money claims before the DOLE and the NLRC. Nonetheless, it declared that the ends of justice would be better served if respondents would be given the opportunity to be heard on their complaint for illegal dismissal. Anent the issue on insufficiency of the appeal bond, the CA accorded a liberal interpretation to the Labor Code provisions relating thereto and thus, deemed the same as not fatal. Accordingly, the CA ordered the remand of the case to the NLRC for further proceedings on the matter of illegal dismissal, separation pay, damages, and attorneys fees. Both parties moved for reconsideration which the CA denied in its Resolution [20] dated December 18, 2006. Hence, petitioners KPKPI and Reyes filed the instant petition. Issue Before the Court The core issue raised for the Courts resolution is whether the CA erred in ordering the reinstatement and remand of the NLRC CASE to the NLRC despite its finding of forum shopping. The Courts Ruling The petition is bereft of merit. At the outset, the Court finds that contrary to the findings of both the NLRC and the CA, respondents are not guilty of forum shopping. Thus, considering that the NLRC did not resolve the appeal on the merits but instead dismissed the case based on a finding of forum shopping, the Court concurs in the result arrived at by the CA in remanding the cases for illegal dismissal to the NLRC for resolution of the appeal. Forum shopping exists "when one party 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." [21] What is truly important to consider in determining whether it exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibi