G.R. No. 159323 ; July 31, 2008
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS (PHILS.), INC. and ERIC MONTINOLA, Petitioners, vs. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION and DR. DEAN CLIMACO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers (Phils.), Inc. engaged respondent Dr. Dean Climaco as a retainer physician under a yearly agreement stipulating a monthly fee and specifying his duties under an attached Comprehensive Medical Plan. The contract explicitly stated no employer-employee relationship existed. Dr. Climaco continuously performed his duties, and his compensation increased over time. Doubting his status, he inquired with government agencies and subsequently filed two complaints before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for regularization and, later, illegal dismissal, asserting an employer-employee relationship and claiming attendant benefits. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC initially ruled in favor of Coca-Cola, finding no employer-employee relationship, but the Court of Appeals later reversed this.
While the NLRC cases were pending, Dr. Climaco filed a separate petition with the Social Security Commission (SSC) praying for compulsory SSS coverage, which hinges on the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Coca-Cola moved to dismiss the SSC petition, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of such a relationship. Dr. Climaco opposed, referencing the pending NLRC cases. The SSC denied the motion to dismiss and ordered the reception of evidence. Coca-Cola then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the SSC correctly denied the motion to dismiss the petition for compulsory coverage on grounds of prejudicial question, forum shopping, and litis pendentia.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the SSC and CA rulings. On the issue of a prejudicial question, the Court clarified that the concept applies only in criminal cases and is inapplicable to civil cases like the one at bar. The pending labor case does not constitute a prejudicial question that would necessitate the suspension of the SSC proceedings.
Regarding forum shopping, the Court found Dr. Climaco not guilty. Forum shopping requires the filing of multiple suits based on the same cause of action, with the same reliefs, before different courts or agencies. Here, the cause of action and primary relief sought in the SSC petition (compulsory coverage) are distinct from those in the NLRC cases (regularization, illegal dismissal, and monetary benefits). While both proceedings involve a common factual issue—the existence of an employer-employee relationship—this alone does not constitute identity of causes of action.
Finally, the ground of litis pendentia was not established. For litis pendentia to apply, there must be identity of parties, rights asserted, and reliefs prayed for between the pending cases. The relief sought from the SSC—coverage and remittance of contributions—is fundamentally different from the reliefs of reinstatement and payment of labor standard benefits sought from the NLRC. Therefore, the SSC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the reception of evidence to determine the factual issue of employer-employee relationship specific to social security coverage.