Overview

“Forum shopping” happens when a party simultaneously or successively files multiple actions involving the same essential facts and reliefs in different courts or tribunals, hoping that one will produce a favorable outcome. In Philippine labor litigation, it most often appears as parallel recourse to (a) Labor Arbiters/NLRC, (b) regular courts via extraordinary remedies, (c) DOLE administrative mechanisms (including SEnA), and occasionally (d) other bodies with distinct jurisdictions (e.g., the Civil Service Commission for government workers). Philippine procedural law prohibits forum shopping, and the prohibition fully applies to labor cases.

This article distills the governing rules, tests, common fact patterns, and sanctions, with practical guidance for employers, workers, and counsel.

Core Doctrines

1) The “Triple Identity” Test

Forum shopping is generally evaluated using the same analytical yardstick as litis pendentia and res judicata:

Identity of parties (or substantial identity, including privies or officers sued in representative capacities);
Identity of rights or causes of action (arising from the same aggregate of facts); and
Identity of reliefs (or such reliefs as founded on the same transactions or facts).

If these are present—or if success in one action would be res judicata in another—forum shopping exists.

2) Relationship to Litis Pendentia and Res Judicata

Litis pendentia (a pending prior case) warrants dismissal or suspension of the later case to avoid conflicting rulings.
Res judicata (a final prior judgment on the merits by a competent tribunal) bars re-litigation and compels outright dismissal of the later case.

Forum shopping can be found even when pleadings are styled differently (e.g., unfair labor practice vs. illegal dismissal) if the essential factual matrix and reliefs substantially overlap.

Where Forum Shopping Arises in Labor Matters

A) NLRC vs. Regular Courts

Primary jurisdiction over termination disputes, unfair labor practice, and most monetary claims lies with Labor Arbiters (NLRC).
A party who files—or keeps—an initiatory pleading in court raising issues within the NLRC’s competence, while pursuing a parallel NLRC case on the same facts and reliefs, risks a forum-shopping finding.
Typical red flag: a pending Rule 65 petition in the Court of Appeals challenging an NLRC ruling and a newly filed court action re-pleading the same controversy.

B) DOLE Processes (including SEnA) vs. NLRC

SEnA (Single-Entry Approach) provides mandatory conciliation-mediation before formal filing in the NLRC/DOLE; it is not a second forum to litigate the merits.
DOLE Regional Directors handle specific labor standards money claims of a limited type (and historically subject to thresholds and conditions), while Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over dismissal disputes and most complex monetary claims.
Duplicative filings—e.g., wage claims in DOLE and an overlapping money-claim component of an illegal dismissal case in the NLRC—invite dismissal, consolidation, or narrowing to avoid splitting a single cause of action.

C) Administrative vs. Quasi-Judicial vs. Constitutional Bodies

Public sector employment: remedies may lie with the CSC rather than the NLRC. Filing in both to see which sticks is classic forum shopping.
Arbitration (e.g., voluntary arbitration under a CBA) vs. NLRC: When a CBA assigns disputes to a Voluntary Arbitrator, a party cannot simultaneously litigate the same dispute before a Labor Arbiter.

D) Intra-NLRC Duplication

Multiple complaints (e.g., one for illegal dismissal and another for unpaid benefits) based on the same employment relationship and facts are usually consolidated before the same Labor Arbiter. Persisting with split cases after consolidation is ordered may be treated as abuse of process.

Procedural Anchors

1) Certification Against Forum Shopping (Rule 7, Sec. 5, Rules of Court)

Initiatory pleadings filed in courts must contain a sworn certification stating that the claimant has not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues; that, to the best of their knowledge, no such action exists; and that if they learn of one, they will report it within five (5) days.
In labor litigation, this is crucial for petitions for certiorari (Rule 65) and petitions for review lodged in the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court from NLRC decisions.
While NLRC pleadings are governed by their own rules (generally requiring verification rather than the Rule 7 certification), the substantive prohibition against forum shopping still binds parties across fora.

2) NLRC Rules of Procedure (as amended)

Authorize dismissal on grounds analogous to Rule 16 (e.g., litis pendentia and res judicata) and allow consolidation of related cases.
Emphasize substantial justice, but discourage piecemeal litigation and multiplicity of suits.

3) Ethical Regimes

The Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) expressly condemns forum shopping and abuse of court processes; lawyers may face professional discipline for enabling or tolerating it.
Candor, fairness, and the duty to avoid multiplicity of suits guide counsel’s strategic choices.

Sanctions and Consequences

Dismissal of the later case (or both cases in egregious situations).
Contempt of court and administrative sanctions for willful or deliberate forum shopping.
Striking the pleading and denial of the relief sought.
Fines imposed by the court; potential disciplinary action against counsel (reprimand, suspension, or, in severe cases, disbarment).
Perjury exposure if the certification against forum shopping is false.
Adverse cost consequences and reputational harm that may influence discretionary rulings (e.g., on interim relief).

Courts also consider good faith and whether the duplicative filing stems from confusion about jurisdiction; honest mistakes are treated differently from strategic multi-filing.

Practical Red Flags in Labor Cases

Simultaneous filings: A complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC and a damages suit in the RTC anchored on the same dismissal facts.
Serial filings: After receiving an unfavorable interlocutory order, the party files a new, differently titled action elsewhere seeking the same effective relief.
Split claims: Separate suits for backwages and benefits that should have been pleaded together in a single illegal dismissal case.
Parallel administrative tracks: Wage or benefits claims in DOLE while maintaining an overlapping monetary claim in the NLRC.
Mixed fora with contractual clauses: A grievance that the CBA commits to voluntary arbitration is filed at the NLRC to secure a faster or perceived friendlier forum.

How Tribunals Cure Duplication

Consolidation before the same Labor Arbiter or division when matters share factual underpinnings.
Stay/Suspension of one case in deference to the forum that properly obtained jurisdiction first.
Dismissal based on litis pendentia or res judicata.
De-duplication orders requiring parties to elect a forum or withdraw duplicative pleadings.
Referral to the proper body (e.g., voluntary arbitration pursuant to a CBA).

Compliance Playbook for Parties and Counsel

Before Filing

Map the controversy: Identify every claim arising from the employment episode (termination, ULP, wage differentials, damages, final pay, 13th month, service incentive leave, etc.).
Choose the correct forum:
- NLRC/Labor Arbiter for termination, ULP, and most complex money claims.
- Voluntary Arbitration if the CBA assigns the dispute there.
- DOLE for specific labor-standards enforcement contexts and as required by SEnA prior to formal filing.
- CSC and public-sector mechanisms for government employees.
Bundle related claims to avoid splitting a single cause of action.

Drafting Tips

For court pleadings (e.g., Rule 65 petitions), attach a properly executed certification against forum shopping signed by the principal party (not merely by counsel, unless a recognized exception applies), indicating all known related cases.
In NLRC filings, provide full disclosure of any related proceedings (e.g., pending SEnA requests, DOLE compliance proceedings, VA grievances, or civil suits).

After Filing

If you learn of a parallel case, promptly disclose and consider withdrawal or consolidation.
Resist filing “protective” duplicate cases; instead, pursue interim reliefs (e.g., motions for consolidation, urgent motions within the same case) in the proper forum.
Maintain a case matrix noting forum, docket numbers, parties, causes, reliefs, and status to police duplication.

Frequent Gray Areas (and How to Navigate Them)

Damages in civil court vs. labor reliefs: Tort or contract claims in the RTC that are merely re-labeled employment claims can be struck as forum shopping. If a truly independent civil cause exists (e.g., a distinct tort unrelated to the employment dispute), plead the factual independence with clarity.
SEnA outcomes: A settled issue at SEnA will bar re-litigation of the same claims between the same parties; draft settlement terms meticulously and specify scope to avoid future overlap.
Mixed private/public employment histories: If a claimant has stints in both sectors, segregate the periods and fora; do not blend claims in a single multi-forum strategy.
CBA arbitration carve-outs: When a CBA carves out certain disputes to the Labor Arbiter, mind the boundary; do not scatter grievances across VA and NLRC.

Decision Tree (Condensed)

Is there another case with the same parties (or privies), facts, and reliefs?
- Yes: Risk of forum shopping → dismiss, consolidate, or elect one forum.
- No: Proceed, but document why the causes/reliefs are distinct.
Does a CBA/contract require VA?
- Yes: File in VA (or risk dismissal in NLRC).
- No: Go to NLRC if the dispute is a labor matter within LA jurisdiction.
Is the action initiatory in a regular court?
- Yes: Attach Rule 7 certification; disclose all related cases.
Public sector angle?
- Yes: Likely CSC (not NLRC); avoid dual tracks.

Takeaways

In labor cases, one controversy = one forum (unless a statute or CBA clearly divides jurisdictions).
The substance of the claims—not their labels—controls. If the end-goal relief is the same, separate filings will likely be deemed forum shopping.
Sanctions are real: dismissals, fines, contempt, and lawyer discipline.
Good process management—correct forum selection, complete joinder of related claims, accurate certifications, and early disclosure—prevents duplication and protects litigants’ rights.

This article provides a comprehensive doctrinal and practical framework. For a specific case, consult counsel to evaluate jurisdictional nuances, settlement posture, and the most efficient single-forum path to resolution.