This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-08-12 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| In Silahis International Hotel, Inc. v. The National Labor Relations Commission, et al.,[74] we reiterated our consistent rule that a party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different forums. Although most of the cases that we have ruled upon regarding forum shopping involved petitions in the courts and administrative agencies, the rule prohibiting it applies equally to multiple petitions in the same tribunal or agency. We concluded that by filing another petition involving the same essential facts and circumstances in the same agency, i.e. where respondents filed their appeal and injunction case separately in the NLRC, respondents approached two different fora in order to increase their chances obtaining a favorable decision or action. We affirmed that this practice cannot be tolerated and should be condemned. | |||||
|
2008-08-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The petitioner cites in support of his position the cases of Silahis International, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[4] Tantoy Sr. v. Court of Appeals,[5] and First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals.[6] Silahis was cited for the proposition that only one recourse - the appeal - should have been filed because the issues were inter-related. Tantoy, Sr. spoke of related causes or the same or substantially the same reliefs in considering whether there is forum shopping. On the other hand, First Philippine International Bank was cited to emphasize that the key to a finding of forum shopping is the objective of the relief; though differently worded, there is violation of the rule against forum shopping if the objective in all the actions filed involves the same relief - in this case, the setting aside of the Order of April 3, 2002. The petitioner noted that the respondents had succeeded in obtaining this relief in their petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus (CA-G.R. SP No. 70349) and the ruling in this petition already constituted res judicata on the validity of the Order of April 3, 2002. | |||||
|
2005-09-13 |
|||||
| We likewise find no merit in petitioners' claim that since both petitions were filed in the CA, it is absurd for there to be forum shopping when there is only one forum involved. In Silahis International Hotel, Inc. vs. NLRC,[15] we held: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. | |||||
|
2005-06-28 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| To bolster its pose that no forum shopping and litis pendentia exist, the petitioner invokes the ruling of the Court in Silahis International Hotel, Inc. v. NLRC, et al.,[16] averring that when a party does not pursue simultaneous remedies in fora, there is no forum shopping. The petitioner reiterates that the issue and the causes of action in LMB Case No. 7-98 and SP Civil Action No. 02-237 are different. It points out that it certainly is not "a party against whom an adverse judgment or order has been rendered in one forum"; neither has it instituted "two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause." The petitioner further insists that the LMB has no jurisdiction to try LMB Case No. 7-98; it is the regional trial courts that have original jurisdiction in such cases. The petitioner points out that the private respondents failed to file an action for nullification of TCT Nos. 131918 and 131919 within the one-year period from the date of issuance of the subject titles and are, therefore, barred from questioning the said titles. The petitioner further points out that the certificates of title under the Torrens system of registration cannot be collaterally attacked. The petitioner concludes that the trial court should not have dismissed SP Civil Action No. 02-237, but instead should have given it due course. | |||||
|
2003-07-18 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| As above shown it is not disputed that the union filed a notice of strike on September 27, 1990 [Exh. 12]; par. 5 (c) and for this purpose, the union conducted a strike vote referendum and informed the Department of Labor of the result of the strike vote, acting on which said office issued its order of October 31, 1990 certifying the labor dispute to the Honorable Commission for compulsory arbitration and enjoining the parties from going on strike lockout [same par.; Exh. 16]. But then despite said order the Hotel intended to decrease its plantilla by 200 employees [Exh. 17]; terminated 60 employees, including 2 union officers, despite the vehement protests from the union; also terminating on November 14, 1990 86 employees effective December 14, 1990 [Exh. 20] and to put fear upon the union members, circularized that the Hotel will close for a period of six months. So at this point in time, November 14, 1990 their notice of strike of September 27, 1990 [Exh. 12] has not been withdrawn nor resolved one way or another such that notice `continued then as a warning that anyday (sic) after' the 15-day cooling-off period a strike impends (Morabe, The Law on Strikes, 1962 First Ed. p. 187) as it happened on November 16, 1990. The notice of strike filed on this date is a mere reiteration of that earlier notice of strike of September 27, 1990. Thus Union President Soluta declared in his affidavit: "36. The requirements of the law relative to the Notice of Strike filed on September 27, 1990 having been complied with, the union declared a strike against the company on November 16, 1990 based on grounds stated in the Notice of Strike filed on September 27, 1990."[19] On August 4, 1993, this Court rendered a Decision in G.R. No. 104513 granting the petition and annulling the Resolution of the NLRC dated March 11, 1992.[20] | |||||
|
2003-07-18 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| When the petitioner learned of the decision of the Labor Arbiter on February 14, 1992, it forthwith barred the officers and members of the respondent union from entering the hotel. On February 22, 1992, the SOLE ordered the petitioner to accept the dismissed officers and employees, but the petitioner refused. On February 27, 1992, the officers of the union filed a very urgent petition for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against the petitioner under Article 218 (e) of the Labor Code. On March 11, 1992, the NLRC issued a minute resolution in favor of the officers/employees ordering the petitioner to reinstate them. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the said resolution but the said motion was denied. The petitioner forthwith filed with this Court on March 11, 1992 a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the respondent union and its officers for the nullification of the said resolution.[18] | |||||