Negros Slashers, Inc. vs.

Teng
G.R. No. 187122. February 22, 2012.

NATURE:
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals
FACTS:
Alvin Teng is a professional basketball player who started his career as such in
the Philippine Basketball Association and then later on played in the Metropolitan
Basketball Association (MBA).
Teng signed a 3-year contract with Laguna Lakers. Before the expiration of his
contract the Lakers traded and/or transferred Teng to petitioner Negros Slashers.
During the MBA Championship Round for the year 2000 season, Teng exhibited
the following behaviors:

On game number 4, Teng had a below-par playing performance.

Because of this, the coaching staff decided to pull him out of the
game. He then sat on the bench, untied his shoelaces and donned

his practice jersey.

On Game Number 5 - Teng called-in sick and did not play.Teng was
required to explain writing why no disciplinary action should be taken
against him for his precipitated absence during the crucial Game 5.

He was also informed that formal investigation would be conducted which he

failed to attend. The investigation proceeded at a later date.
The management of Negros Slashers came up with a decision, and through its
General Manager, petitioner Rodolfo Alvarez, wrote 12 Teng informing him of his
termination from the team
Teng filed a complaint before the Office of the Commissioner of the MBA
pursuant to the provision of the Uniform Players Contract which the parties had
executed.

Teng also filed an illegal dismissal case with the Regional Arbitration Branch No.
VI of the NLRC.
The Labor Arbiter issued a decision finding Tengs dismissal illegal. It ruled that
the penalty of dismissal was not justified since the grounds relied upon by petitioners
did not constitute serious misconduct or willful disobedience or insubordination that
would call for the extreme penalty of dismissal from service.
This case was appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC issued a Decision setting aside
the Decision of the Labor Arbiter. The complaint was dismissed for being premature
since the arbitration proceedings before the Commissioner of the MBA were still
pending when Teng filed his complaint for illegal dismissal. Teng filed a motion for
reconsideration, but it was denied for being filed beyond the ten-day reglementary
period.
Aggrieved, Teng filed a petition for certiorari with the CA assailing the NLRC
Decision. The CA set aside the resolution of the NLRC and reinstated with modification
the Labor Arbiters Decision. . The CA held that there was no serious misconduct or
willful disobedience or insubordination on Tengs part. Negros Slashers motion for
reconsideration was denied.
Negros Slashers filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari
and argued the following:
1) that Teng committed a blatant violation of the rule against forum shopping; and
2) that Tengs petition for certiorari with the CA should have been dismissed
outright because it was filed beyond the reglementary period. Petitioners point out that
Teng received the NLRC Decision on October 15, 2004 and therefore had ten days or
until October 25, 2004 within which to file a motion for reconsideration. But he filed his
motion for reconsideration only on October 26, 2004 and said motion was denied on
March 21, 2005 for being filed late. Thereafter he filed his petition for certiorari with the
CA on June 20, 2005.

ISSUES:
(1) whether or not the CA erred in giving due course to respondent Tengs petition
for certiorari despite its late filing;
(2) whether or not Teng violated the rule on forum shopping when he filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal with the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC while a
similar complaint was pending in the Office of the Commissioner of the MBA
HELD:
1)

The Court ruled that the CA did not commit a reversible error in giving due course

to Tengs petition for certiorari although said petition was filed late. Ordinarily, rules of
procedure are strictly enforced by courts in order to impart stability in the legal system.
However, in not a few instances, they relaxed the rigid application of the rules of
procedure to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits.
This is in line with the time honored principle that cases should be decided only after
giving all the parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. In that way, the
ends of justice would be better served. For indeed, the general objective of procedure is
to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing
always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of
justice.
2)

The Court likewise found no merit in petitioners claim that respondents act of

filing a complaint with the Labor Arbiter while the same case was pending with the
Office of the Commissioner of the MBA constituted forum shopping.
For forum shopping to exist, it is necessary that (a) there be identity of parties or
at least such parties that represent the same interests in both actions; (b) there be
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 is such that any judgment
rendered in one action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res
judicata in the other action.

Petitioners are correct as to the first two requisites of forum shopping. First, there
is identity of parties involved: Negros Slashers Inc. and respondent Teng.Second, there
is identity of rights asserted i.e., the right of management to terminate employment and
the right of an employee against illegal termination. However, the third requisite of forum
shopping is missing in this case. Any judgment or ruling of the Office of the
Commissioner of the MBA will not amount to res judicata.
To clarify, res judicata is defined in jurisprudence as to have four basic elements: (1)
the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have
been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3)
the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be as
between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of
action.
Here, although contractually authorized to settle disputes, the Office of the
Commissioner of the MBA is not a court of competent jurisdiction as contemplated by
law with respect to the application of the doctrine of res judicata.At best, the Office of
the Commissioner of the MBA is a private mediator or go-between as agreed upon by
team management and a player in the MBA Players Contract of Employment. 28Any
judgment that the Office of the Commissioner of the MBA may render will not result in a
bar for seeking redress in other legal venues. Hence, respondents action of filing the
same complaint in the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC does not constitute
forum shopping.