7/27/2019 LAGMAY Negros vs Teng
1/1
Negros Slashers vs Alvin Teng GR No 187122
February 22, 2012
Ponente: Villarama
Facts
Alvin Teng, a former player of the PBA, entered into a contract
with the Laguna Lakers of the Metropolitan Basketball
Association(MBA). The contract was for 3 years, entered into on
Feb. 4, 1999 and ending on Dec. 31, 2001
Before the contract expired, the Lakers traded Teng to Negros
Slashers. Negros assumed all the obligations of Lakers under
thecontract. Subsequently, on March 2000, Teng executed the Players
Contract of Employment with Negros
During Game 4 of the Championship Round in the MBA Season 4
playoffs, Teng had a below-average performance. When he waspulled
out of the game, he sat on the bench, untied his shoe laces and put
on his practice jersey shirt
During Game 5, he called in sick. This was seen by the
management as unprofessional, serious misconduct. They sent a
letter toTeng demanding for an explanation for his behavior and set
up a formal investigation hearing. He did not appear. Upon the
rescheduled date, Tengs representatives appeared for him.
Another meeting was conducted where the team members and
coaching staff unanimously expressed their sentiments against
Teng. On March 2001 (before contract expired) Teng was sent
another letter, this time of termination from the team as a
result of the decision from the investigation
On July 2001, Teng filed a complaint before the Commissioner of
the MBA pursuant to the voluntary arbitration provision in
thecontract. Four months after (Nov. 6) [According to Teng, the VA
failed to yield any result for three months until the MBA itself
was
dissolved), he also filed an illegal dismissal case with the
Regional Arbitration branch of the NLRC
On July 16, 2002, LA of NLRC declared the dismissal illegal as
the reasons cited did not constitute serious misconduct or
willfuldisobedience or insubordination that would call for the
extreme penalty of dismissal. Negros was ordered to pay
P2,530,000
On appeal, the NLRC (Sept. 10, 2004; received on Oct. 15)
reversed the decision of the LA and dismissed the complaint for
beingpremature as the arbitration proceedings before the MBA were
still pending when the case for illegal dismissal was filed
Teng filed an MR (Oct. 26), which was dismissed on March 21,
2005 for having been filed beyond the 10-day reglementary
period(one day late).
Teng filed a petition for certiorari before the CA assailing the
NLRC decision and the denial of his MR The CA reinstated the LA
decision. It held that the grounds relied upon by the petitioners
in dismissing Teng were not enough to
merit his dismissal. It also held that the LA had jurisdiction
of the case despite voluntary arbitration proceedings with the
Commissioner of the MBA
ISSUES
1. Whether the CA erred in giving due course to the petition
despite the late filing;2. Whether Teng violated the rule on forum
shoping (2 complaints: VA in CMBA and ID in NLRC);3. Whether the
dismissal of Negros was indeed unjustified and not commensurate
with his alleged misconduct.
RULING: Petition was denied; CA upheld
1. No. As ruled in Ong Lim Sing, Jr. v. FEB Leasing and Finance
Corp., the Courts have the prerogative to relax the rules of
procedurewhen doing so would serve substantial justice and equity.
Further, there was no intent to delay administration of justice on
the partof Teng, having filed his MR only one day after the
deadline for filing.
2. No.The elements of forum shopping are:
a) Identity of parties that or such parties that represent the
same interests in the action;b) Identity of rights asserted and
reliefs prayed for, based on an identity of facts;c) Identity of
the two preceding elements, such that the judgment rendered in one
will amount to res judicata on the other
action.
Here, the third element is missing as a ruling of the CMBA will
not amount to res judicata.
The elements of res judicata are:
a) The judgment (sought to prevent the new action) must be
final;b) The court that rendered the judgment must have competent
jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties;c) The judgment
must have been on the merits;d) There must be identity of parties,
subject matter and causes of action between the two actions.There
was no res judicata in this case as the CVMBA is not a court of
competent jurisdiction within the contemplation of the law. It
is a private mediator chosen by both parties in the Contract of
Employment. Hence, the filing with the NLRC will not result to
forum
shopping as the judgment by CMBA will not bar redress in other
legal venues.
3. Yes. The penalty of dismissal was incommensurate to the
misconduct of Teng. While missing a team game and untying shoe
laceswhile the game is ongoing is both unprofessional and is a
punishable offense, it does not justify the extreme penalty of
dismissal. It
is elementary doctrine that the penalty must be commensurate
with the act or omission imputed to the employee and must be
imposed in connection with the disciplinary authority of the
employer. A severe reprimand, fine or suspension could have
been
imposed. Further, there was no warning or admonition for Tengs
violation, only outri ght termination of his services
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED for
lack of merit and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
September 17,
2008 and Resolution dated February 11, 2009, in CA-G.R. SP No.
00817 are hereby AFFIRMED.
