LASALA V NFA

FACTS:

Lasala, through his company PSF Security Agency, used to provide security guard services to the
NFA. Sometime in 1994, Lasala's employees who were deployed to the NFA filed with the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint for underpayment of wages and
nonpayment of other monetary benefits. The NLRC ruled for the employees and held Lasala and
the NFA solidarily liable for the employees' adjudged monetary award.

Lasala also asserts that the NFA could no longer invoke extrinsic fraud as its basis for annulment,
since the NFA failed to raise this ground in its petition for relief.

The NFA argues that there was no res judicata between its petition for relief and petition for
annulment of judgment as these two reliefs were based on two different grounds. The petition for
relief was grounded on excusable negligence while the petition for annulment was based on
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

Issue:

WON Lasala's counterclaim for wage adjustment against the NFA is not a compulsory but a
permissive counterclaim.

Ruling:

NO, Lasala's permissive counterclaim has already prescribed and may no longer be refiled.

The cause of action for this counterclaim already existed even before the filing of the NFA's
complaint against Lasala. Thus, it did not arise out of, nor is it necessarily connected with, the
NFA's complaint for sum of money and prayer for preliminary attachment. Because it is not an
incident of the NFA's claim, it can be filed as a separate case against the NFA, unless already
extinguished.

Dio v Subic Bay

Facts:

Petitioner H.S. Equities, Ltd., (HSE) is a foreign corporation duly organized and existing under
the laws of the British Virgin Islands, with registered address at Akara Building, 24 De Castro
Street, Wickhams Cay I, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands. It entered into an isolated
transaction subject of the instant case. It is represented in this action by petitioner Virginia S. Dio
(Dio).

To refute the claims of respondents, petitioners maintained in their Answer with Compulsory
Counterclaim that it would be highly preposterous for them to dissuade investors and banks from
putting in money to SBME considering that HSE and Dio are stakeholders of the company with
substantial investments therein. In turn, petitioners countered that their reputation and good name
in the business community were tarnished as a result of the filing of the instant complaint, and
thus prayed that they be indemnified in the amount of US$2,000,000.00 as moral damages.
Issue:

Whether a counterclaim may still remain for independent adjudication?

Ruling:

It bears to emphasize that petitioner's counterclaim against respondent is for damages and
attorney's fees arising from the unfounded suit. While respondent's Complaint against petitioner is
already dismissed, petitioner may have very well already incurred damages and litigation
expenses such as attorney's fees since it was forced to engage legal representation in the
Philippines to protect its rights and to assert lack of jurisdiction of the courts over its person by
virtue of the improper service of summons upon it. Hence, the cause of action of petitioner's
counterclaim is not eliminated by the mere dismissal of respondent's complaint.

BASAN V COCA COLA

On February 18, 1997, petitioners Romeo Basan, Danilo Dizon, Jaime L. Tumabiao, Jr., Roberto
Dela Rama, Jr., Ricky S. Nicolas, Crispulo D. Donor, Galo Falguera filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal with money claims against respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, alleging that
respondent dismissed them without just cause and prior written notice required by law.

Respondent contends that the petition should be denied due course for its verification and
certification of non-forum shopping was signed by only one of the petitioners. It alleges that even
assuming the validity of the same, it should still be dismissed for the appellate court aptly found
that petitioners were fixed-term employees who were hired intermittently.

Issue:

Whether the case should be dismissed for the violation of the verification and certification of non-
forum shopping?

Ruling:

this Court has consistently held that when under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, as when
all the petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, as in
this case, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping
substantially complies with the certification requirement.

Thus, the fact that the petition was signed only by petitioner Basan does not necessarily result in
its outright dismissal for it is more in accord with substantial justice to overlook petitioners’
procedural lapses. Indeed, the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed in labor
cases to serve the demand of justice.
Waterfront Cebu City v Ledesma

Facts:

Respondent was employed as a House Detective at Waterfront located at Salinas Drive, Cebu
City.

On the basis of the complaints filed before Waterfront by Christe Mandal, a supplier of a
concessionaire of Waterfront, and Rosanna Lofranco, who was seeking a job at the same hotel,
Ledesma was dismissed from employment. From the affidavits and testimonies of Christe
Mandal and Rosanna Lofranco during the administrative hearings conducted by Waterfront, the
latter found, among others, that Ledesma kissed and mashed the breasts of Christe Mandal inside
the hotel’s elevator, and exhibited his penis and asked Rosanna Lofranco to masturbate him at the
conference room of the hotel.

On August 12, 2008, Ledesma filed a complaint for illegal dismissal

Ledesma sought the dismissal of the instant petition of Waterfront on the basis of the following
formal infirmities: (1) the presentation of Gaye Maureen Cenabre, the representative of
Waterfront, of a Community Tax Certificate before the Notary Public to prove her identity,
violated A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, and rendered the jurat in the verification and certification on non-
forum shopping of the petition as defective; and (2) no certified true copy of the August 10, 2011
Board Resolution quoted in the Secretary’s Certificate was attached to the petition.

Issue:
WON the jurat in the verification and certification on non-forum shopping is defective or with
merit.

Held:

Pointed out by Ledesma are not adequate to cause the dismissal of the present petition. Gaye
Maureen Cenabre presented to the Notary Public a Community Tax Certificate numbered
27401128 to prove her identity instead of a current identification document issued by an official
agency bearing her photograph and signature as required by A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC. This rendered
the jurat in the verification/certification of non-forum shopping of Waterfront as defective.

Nonetheless, any flaw in the verification, being only a formal, not a jurisdictional requirement, is
not a fatal defect.