, VS. ARMSCOR GLOBAL DEFENSE, INC. [FORMERLY, ARMS CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES], MARTIN TUASON (OWNER/PRESIDENT), ATTY. ERMILANDO O. VILLAFUERTE (HR-HEAD/IN-­HOUSE COUNSEL), MANPOWER OUTSOURCING SERVICES, INC., AND DIOGENES JAURIQUE (PRESIDENT/OWNER

Ruling

accordingly, dismissed the instant illegal constructive dismissal case on the ground of litis pendentia or forum shopping. [14] The LA ruled that the regularization cases and the illegal constructive dismissal case filed by petitioners are similar in parties, issues, and causes of action, such that the judgment in either case would be determinative of the other. In this regard, the LA opined that in resolving the issue of whether or not petitioners were indeed constructively dismissed, there is a need to determine whether they are regular employees of Armscor which, in turn, is the matter in inquiry in the regularization cases and would preempt the regularization cases which, to date, have not attained finality. [15] It must be noted that since the LA dismissed petitioners' complaint on the aforesaid grounds, it no longer delved on the merits thereof. Aggrieved, petitioners appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC Ruling In a Decision [16] dated October 22, 2018, the NLRC affirmed the LA's dismissal of the complaint. [17] Having found that both parties had pending cases for regularization before the NLRC's Division, as admitted in their respective pleadings, the NLRC held that it cannot discuss or resolve in the present appeal the issue of employer-employee relationship between petitioners and Armscor. [18] Thus, the NLRC no longer deemed it necessary to traverse the merits of petitioners' complaint. Dissatisfied, petitioners moved for reconsideration, [19] which was denied in a Resolution [20] dated December 27, 2018. Hence, the matter was elevated to the CA via a petition for certiorari . [21] The CA Ruling In a Decision [22] dated June 30, 2020, the CA denied the petition for certiorari , finding that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in affirming the LA's dismissal. [23] It found petitioners guilty of litis pendentia since petitioners already filed complaints with the NLRC involving essentially the same parties, issues, and causes of action, and there is a need to resolve first the issue of regularization. [24] Similar to the Labor Tribunals, the CA did not resolve the substantial issues of the complaint. Undaunted, petitioners filed a motion [25] for reconsideration, which was, however, denied in a Resolution [26] dated January 8, 2021; hence, this petition. The Issue before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether the CA correctly held that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it affirmed the LA's dismissal of the instant illegal constructive dismissal case due to litis pendentia or forum shopping. The Court's Ruling The petition is meritorious. It must be stressed that to justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari , petitioners must satisfactorily show that the court or quasi­ judicial authority gravely abused the discretion conferred upon it. Grave abuse of discretion connotes judgment exercised in a capricious and whimsical