ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 166942.� June 22, 2005]
MASTER SHIRT CO. vs. SSC
THIRD DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 22 2005.
G.R. No. 166942 (MASTER SHIRT CO., INC., LEE ENG YAO, TIMMY C.S. YAO, ROMMY C.S. YAO, LINDA CHAN, as members of the Board of Directors of Master Shirt Co., Inc., vs. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION and SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM.)
G.R. No. 165128 (MASTER SHIRT CO., INC., LEE ENG YAO, TIMMY C.S. YAO, ROMMY C.S. YAO, LINDA CHAN, as members of the Board of Directors of Master Shirt Co., Inc. vs. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION and SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM.)
On October 22, 2004, a petition for review on certiorari was filed with this Court by the Eufemio Law Offices. Impleaded as petitioners are the Master Shirt Co., Inc. and the members of its Board of Directors, namely: Lee Eng Yao, Timmy C.S. Yao, Romy C.S. Yao and Linda Chan. The petition was docketed as G.R. No. 165128.
A week later, or on October 29, 2004, Timmy C.S. Yao, through Atty. Cenon S. Cervantes, Jr., filed a supplemental petition for certiorari, alleging that he is adopting the petition for review on certiorari filed by the Eufemio Law Offices in G.R. No. 165128.
On the same date, Atty. Ruy Alberto S. Rondain filed another petition in the same G.R. No. 165128 (the Eufemio Law Offices' petition) specifying therein that the petition is being filed on behalf of petitioner Romy C.S. Yao.
All petitions assail the same Decision dated June 11, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 81417 which denied the petition for review filed by herein petitioners and affirmed the resolution dated June 18, 2003 of public respondent Social Security Commission in SSC No. 2-15132-01 declaring that the individual petitioners are liable for the unpaid SSS contributions of the employees of petitioner Master Shirt Co., Inc. and for the unpaid loan amortizations of said employees.
On January 12, 2005, we issued a Resolution:
1. Denying the petition filed by the Eufemio Law Offices for lack of a valid verification and certification against forum shopping;
2. Granting the motion for leave to file a supplemental petition for certiorari filed by Atty. Cervantes for Timmy C.S. Yao;
3. Requiring respondents to file a consolidated comment on the supplemental petition of Timmy C.S. Yao filed by Atty. Cervantes and on the petition of Romy C.S. Yao filed by Atty. Rondain; and
4. Directing Atty. Cervantes and Atty. Rondain to pay separate docket and legal fees for each petition in order that the same can be docketed separately.
The petition filed for petitioner Romy C.S. Yao was docketed as G.R. No. 166942 and assigned to the Second Division.
On May 3, 2005, the Solicitor General filed the comment on the supplemental petition of Timmy C.S. Yao.
In a Resolution dated May 16, 2005, the Second Division transferred G.R. No. 166942 filed by Romy C.S. Yao to the Third Division, the same being related to G. R. No. 165128 (the Eufemio Law Offices' petition). On June 20, 2005, the Third Division consolidated the three (3) petitions.
It bears emphasis that in the petition filed by the Eufemio Law Offices, docketed as G.R.No. 165128, Timmy C.S. Yao and Romy C.S. Yao were already impleaded as co-petitioners of Master Shirt Co., Inc.
In their attempt to make the petitions appear different from each other, petitioners raised different issues therein. However, it is clear that the ultimate objective in all petitions is to make it appear that each of the petitioners should not be held personally liable for the unremitted SSS contributions of the employees of Master Shirt Co., Inc. and the unpaid loan amortizations of its employees. Petitioners maintain that they have an entirely separate and distinct personality from that of the petitioner company.
By filing separate petitions in their individual capacities, petitioners are guilty of forum shopping. Forum shopping, or the institution of two (2) cases or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition, has been characterized as an act of malpractice that is prohibited and condemned as trifling with the courts and abusing their processes. It constitutes improper conduct which tends to degrade the administration of justice. It has also been aptly described as deplorable because it adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts. [1] cralaw
There is forum shopping when the following elements are present: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in one action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other action or actions. [2] cralaw
The petitions unquestionably involve the same parties, the same set of facts and the same objectives. There is an identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for so that judgment in either of the three cases will amount to res judicata in other cases.
WHEREFORE, the supplemental petition in G.R. No. 165128 filed by Timmy C.S. Yao and the petition in G.R. No. 166942 filed by Romy C.S. Yao are DENIED by reason of forum shopping.
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration of our Resolution dated January 12, 2005 denying the petition in G.R. No. 165128 is DENIED with finality.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Chemphil Export and Import Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 112438-39, December 12, 1995, 251 SCRA 257; Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 108451, April 11, 1997, 271 SCRA 157.
[2] cralaw Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corporation vs. United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 154187, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 585.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
