Negros Slashers

8/18/2019 Negros Slashers

1/4

Negros Slashers, Inc. vs. Teng

G.R. No. 187122.

February 22, 2012.

NATUR!

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of

Appeals

FA"TS!

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 etropolitan

Basketball Association !BA"#

Teng signed a $%year contract with &aguna &akers# Before the e'piration of his

contract the &akers traded and(or transferred Teng to petitioner Negros )lashers#

*uring the BA Cha+pionship ,ound for the year -... season/ Teng e'hibited

the following behaviors0

• On ga+e nu+ber 1/ Teng had a below%par playing perfor+ance#

Because of this/ the coaching staff decided to pull hi+ out of the

ga+e# 2e then sat on the bench/ untied his shoelaces and donned

his practice 3ersey#

• On 4a+e Nu+ber 5 % Teng called%in sick and did not play#Teng was

re6uired to e'plain writing why no disciplinary action should be taken

against hi+ for his precipitated absence during the crucial 4a+e 5#

2e was also infor+ed that for+al investigation would be conducted which he

failed to attend# The investigation proceeded at a later date#

The +anage+ent of Negros )lashers ca+e up with a decision/ and through its

4eneral anager/ petitioner ,odolfo Alvare7/ wrote8- Teng infor+ing hi+ of his

ter+ination fro+ the tea+

Teng filed a co+plaint before the Office of the Co++issioner of the BA

pursuant to the provision of the 9nifor+ Players Contract which the parties had

e'ecuted#

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000013e41616035e2be8bae000a008e00560020/p/AAAK3453/?username=Guest#ftn13http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000013e41616035e2be8bae000a008e00560020/p/AAAK3453/?username=Guest#ftn13


2/4

Teng also filed an illegal dis+issal case with the ,egional Arbitration Branch No#

:I of the N&,C#

The &abor Arbiter issued a decision finding Teng;s dis+issal illegal# It ruled that

the penalty of dis+issal was not 3ustified since the grounds relied upon by petitioners

did not constitute serious +isconduct or willful disobedience or insubordination that

would call for the e'tre+e penalty of dis+issal fro+ service#

This case was appealed to the N&,C# The N&,C issued a *ecision setting aside

the *ecision of the &abor Arbiter# The co+plaint was dis+issed for being pre+ature

since the arbitration proceedings before the Co++issioner of the BA were still

pending when Teng filed his co+plaint for illegal dis+issal# Teng filed a +otion for

reconsideration/ but it was denied for being filed beyond the ten%day regle+entary

period#

Aggrieved/ Teng filed a petition for certiorari with the CA assailing the N&,C

*ecision# The CA set aside the resolution of the N&,C and reinstated with +odification

the &abor Arbiter;s *ecision# # The CA held that there was no serious +isconduct or

willful disobedience or insubordination on Teng;s part# Negros )lashers; +otion for

reconsideration was denied#

Negros )lashers filed with the )upre+e Court a petition for review on certiorari

and argued the following0

8" that Teng co++itted a blatant violation of the rule against foru+ shopping< and

-" that Teng;s petition for certiorari with the CA should have been dis+issed

outright because it was filed beyond the regle+entary period# Petitioners point out that

Teng received the N&,C *ecision on October 85/ -..1 and therefore had ten days or

until October -5/ -..1 within which to file a +otion for reconsideration# But he filed his

+otion for reconsideration only on October -=/ -..1 and said +otion was denied on

arch -8/ -..5 for being filed late# Thereafter he filed his petition for certiorari with the

CA on >une -./ -..5#


3/4

ISSUS!

!8" whether or not the CA erred in giving due course to respondent Teng;s petition

for certiorari despite its late filing<

!-" whether or not Teng violated the rule on foru+ shopping when he filed a

co+plaint for illegal dis+issal with the ,egional Arbitration Branch of the N&,C while a

si+ilar co+plaint was pending in the Office of the Co++issioner of the BA

#$%!

8" The Court ruled that the CA did not co++it a reversible error in giving due course

to Teng;s petition for certiorari although said petition was filed late# Ordinarily/ rules of

procedure are strictly enforced by courts in order to i+part stability in the legal syste+#

2owever/ in not a few instances/ they rela'ed the rigid application of the rules of

procedure to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the +erits#

This is in line with the ti+e 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 3ustice would be better served# ?or indeed/ the general ob3ective of procedure is

to facilitate the application of 3ustice to the rival clai+s of contending parties/ bearing

always in +ind that procedure is not to hinder but to pro+ote the ad+inistration of 3ustice#

-" The Court likewise found no +erit in petitioners; clai+ that respondent;s act of

filing a co+plaint with the &abor Arbiter while the sa+e case was pending with the

Office of the Co++issioner of the BA constituted foru+ shopping#

?or foru+ shopping to e'ist/ it is necessary that !a" there be identity of parties or

at least such parties that represent the sa+e interests in both actions< !b" there be

identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for/ the relief being founded on the sa+e

facts< and !c" the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any 3udg+ent

rendered in one action will/ regardless of which party is successful/ a+ount to res

judicata in the other action#


4/4

Petitioners are correct as to the first two re6uisites of foru+ shopping# First / there

is identity of parties involved0 Negros )lashers Inc# and respondent Teng#Second / there

is identity of rights asserted i.e#/ the right of +anage+ent to ter+inate e+ploy+ent and

the right of an e+ployee against illegal ter+ination# 2owever/ the third re6uisite of foru+

shopping is +issing in this case# Any 3udg+ent or ruling of the Office of the

Co++issioner of the BA will not a+ount to res judicata#

To clarify/ res judicata is defined in 3urisprudence as to have four basic ele+ents0 !8"

the 3udg+ent sought to bar the new action +ust be final< !-" the decision +ust have

been rendered by a court having 3urisdiction over the sub3ect +atter and the parties< !$"

the disposition of the case +ust be a 3udg+ent on the +erits< and !1" there +ust be as

between the first and second action/ identity of parties/ sub3ect +atter/ and causes of action#

2ere/ although contractually authori7ed to settle disputes/ the Office of the

Co++issioner of the BA is not a court of co+petent 3urisdiction as conte+plated by

law with respect to the application of the doctrine of res judicata. At best/ the Office of

the Co++issioner of the BA is a private +ediator or go%between as agreed upon by

tea+ +anage+ent and a player in the BA Player;s Contract of E+ploy+ent# -@ Any

3udg+ent that the Office of the Co++issioner of the BA +ay render will not result in a

bar for seeking redress in other legal venues# 2ence/ respondent;s action of filing the

sa+e co+plaint in the ,egional Arbitration Branch of the N&,C does not constitute

foru+ shopping#
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000013e41616035e2be8bae000a008e00560020/p/AAAK3453/?username=Guest#ftn29http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000013e41616035e2be8bae000a008e00560020/p/AAAK3453/?username=Guest#ftn29

Documents

Negros Slashers