Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner has a capacity to sue by virtue of its
subsequent registration.
RULING
YES.
choose the forum or place wherein to bring their suit for various reasons
or excuses, including to secure procedural advantages, to annoy and
harass the defendant, to avoid overcrowded dockets, or to select a more
friendly venue. To combat these less than honorable excuses, the
principle of forum non conveniens was developed whereby a court, in
conflicts of law cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it
is not the most convenient or available forum and the parties are not
precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere.
In this light, Blacks Law Dictionarysays that forum-shopping occurs
when a party attempts to have his action tried in a particular court or
jurisdiction where he feels he will receive the most favorable judgment
or verdict. Hence, according to Words and Phrases a litigant is open to
the charge of forum shopping whenever he chooses a forum with slight
connection to factual circumstances surrounding his suit, and litigants
should be encouraged to attempt to settle their differences without
imposing undue expense and vexatious situations on the courts.
In the Philippines, forum-shopping has acquired a connotation
encompassing not only a choice of venues, as it was originally
understood in conflicts of laws, but also to a choice of remedies. As to
the first (choice of venues), the Rules of Court, for example, allow a
plaintiff to commence personal actions where the defendant or any of
the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of
the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff (Rule 4, Sec. 2 [b]).
As to remedies, aggrieved parties, for example, are given a choice of
pursuing civil liabilities independently of the criminal, arising from the
same set of facts. A passenger of a public utility vehicle involved in a
vehicular accident may sue on culpa contractual, culpa aquiliana or
culpa criminal - each remedy being available independently of the others
- although he cannot recover more than once.
Applying the foregoing principles in the case before us and comparing it
with the Second Case, it is obvious that there exist identity of parties or
interests represented, identity of rights or causes and identity of reliefs
sought.
Very simply stated, the original complaint in the court a quo which gave
rise to the instant petition was filed by the buyer (herein private
respondent and his predecessors-in-interest) against the seller (herein
petitioners) to enforce the alleged perfected sale of real estate. On the
other hand, the complaintin the Second Case seeks to declare such
purported sale involving the same real property as unenforceable as
against the Bank, which is the petitioner herein. In other words, in the
Second Case, the majority stockholders, in representation of the Bank,
are seeking to accomplish what the Bank itself failed to do in the original
case in the trial court. In brief, the objective or the relief being sought,
though worded differently, is the same, namely, to enable the petitioner
Bank to escape from the obligation to sell the property to respondent.
On April 28, 2005, the petitioners moved for the reconsiderationof the
April 8 Resolution, attaching thereto the missing pleadings. The CA
denied the motion.
ISSUE: WON variance between the dates of the verification/certification
executed abroad and the CA petition is fatal considering the parties are
residing overseas.
RULING: No.
First, the variance in dates does not necessarily contradict the
categorical declaration made by petitioners in their affidavit that they
read and understood the contents of the pleading. The petitioners claim
in this regard is that they read a copy of the CA Petition through an
electronic mail sent to them by their lawyers. In short, the pleading and
the verification are prepared separately and a variance in their dates is a
matter that may satisfactorily be explained. To demand the litigants to
read the very same document that is to be filed before the courts is too
rigorous a requirement; what the Rules require is for a party to read the
contents of a pleading without any specific requirement on the form or
manner in which the reading is to be done. That a client may read the
contents of a pleading without seeing the same pleading to be actually
filed with the court is, in these days of e-mails and other technological
advances in communication, not an explanation that is hard to believe.
Apparently in this case, counsel sent a copy of the draft petition by email and finalized it as soon as it was approved by the petitioners. The
latter, on the other hand, complied with their end not only by approving
the terms of the petition, but also by sending a copy of their sworn
statement in order to file the petition soonest, thereby complying with
the required timeliness for the filing of the petition. To our mind, beyond
the manner of these exchanges, what is important is that efforts were
made to satisfy the objective of the Rule to ensure good faith and
veracity in the allegations of a pleading thereby allowing the courts to
act on the case with reasonable certainty that the petitioners real
positions have been pleaded.
Second, the "circumstances" we mentioned above refer to the
petitioners unique situation as parties residing overseas who are
litigating locally through their local counsel. While these overseas
litigants are not excused from complying with our Rules such as the
strict observance of the periods for appeal and the verification
requirement, we must take into account the attendant realities brought
into play because they are suing from overseas or via long distance
communications with their counsel. In the verification requirement, there
are added formalities required for the acceptance in the Philippines of
statements sworn overseas before foreign notaries; we require their
authentication by our consulates. This is a process whose completion
time may vary depending, among others, on various factors such as the
location of the requesting party from the consulate; the peculiarities of
RULING:
RELATIONS
Article 217 of the Labor Code provides for the jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission x x x Moreover,
Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995,18 provides:
SECTION 10. Money Claims. Notwithstanding any provision of law to
the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to
hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the
complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship
or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas
deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other
forms of damages.
Also, Section 62 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing
R.A. No. 804219 provides that the Labor Arbiters of the NLRC shall have
the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all claims
arising out of employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or
contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including
claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages, subject
to the rules and procedures of the NLRC.
Under these provisions, it is clear that labor arbiters have original and
exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising from employer-employee
relations, including termination disputes involving all workers, among
whom are overseas Filipino workers.