Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
AIR
PHILIPPINES G.R.
NO. 148247
CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
Present:
PANGANIBAN,
C.J.
(Chairperson)
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO,
SR., and
CHICO-NAZARIO,
JJ.
ENRICO
E. ZAMORA, Promulgated:
Respondent. August 7, 2006
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Only those pleadings, parts of case
records and documents which are material and pertinent, in that they may
provide the basis for a determination of a prima facie case of
abuse of discretion, are required to be attached to a petition for certiorari.
A petition lacking such documents contravenes paragraph 2, Section 1, Rule 65
and may be dismissed outright under Section 3, Rule 46. However, if it is shown
that the omission has been rectified by the subsequent submission of the
documents required, the petition must be given due course or reinstated, if it
had been previously dismissed.[1]
Other pleadings and portions of case
records need not accompany the petition, unless the court will require them in order to aid it in its review
of the case. Omission of these documents from the petition will not warrant its
dismissal.[2]
For being allegedly contrary to the
foregoing rule, the Resolutions dated January 11, 2001 and May 23, 2001 of the
Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 62388 entitled,
“Air Philippines Corporation, Petitioner, versus, National Labor Relations
Commission (5th Division) and Enrico Zamora, Respondents” are sought to be
annuled in the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 that is now
before us.[3]
The facts are not in dispute.
Enrico Zamora (Zamora) was employed
with Air Philippines Corporation (APC) as a B-737 Flight Deck Crew.[4] He
applied for promotion to the position of airplane captain and underwent the
requisite training program. After completing training, he inquired about his
promotion but APC did not act on it; instead, it continued to give him
assignments as flight deck crew. Thus, Zamora filed a Complaint with the Labor
Arbiter. He argued that the act of APC of withholding his promotion
rendered his continued employment with
it oppressive and unjust. He therefore asked that APC be held liable for
constructive dismissal.[5]
APC denied that it dismissed complainant. It
pointed out that, when the complaint was filed on May 14, 1997, complainant was still employed
with it. It was only on May 22, 1997 that complainant stopped reporting for
work, not because he was forced to resign, but because he had joined a rival
airline, Grand Air.[6]
In a Decision dated September 16,
1998, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Zamora and declared APC liable for
constructive dismissal. It held:
WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered finding respondent liable for illegal dismissal and
ordering the respondent to:
1.
Reinstate
complainant to his position as B-737 Captain without loss of seniority right
immediately upon receipt thereof (sic);
2.
Pay complainant his full backwages from May 15, 1997 up
to the promulgation of this decision on (sic) the amount of P1,732,500 (sic);
3.
Pay complainant the amount of TWO MILLION PESOS
(P2,000,000.00) in the concept of moral damages and ONE MILLION PESOS
(P1,000,000.00) as exemplary damages;
4.
Pay attorney’s fees equivalent to TEN PERCENT (10%) of
the total award. (Emphasis supplied)
SO ORDERED.[7]
Zamora immediately filed a Motion for
Execution of the order of reinstatement. On November 6, 1998, the Labor Arbiter
granted the motion and issued a writ of execution directing APC to reinstate
complainant to his former position.[8]
Meanwhile, APC filed with the NLRC an
appeal assailing the finding of the Labor Arbiter that it was liable for
constructive dismissal.[9]
The NLRC granted the appeal in a
Resolution dated February 10, 1999. It held that no dismissal, constructive or otherwise, took
place for it was Zamora himself who voluntarilly terminated his employment by
not reporting for work and by joining a competitor Grand Air.[10]
However, upon Motion for
Reconsideration[11]
filed by Zamora, the NLRC, in a Resolution dated December 17, 1999, modified
its earlier Resolution, thus:
WHEREFORE,
the instant Motion for Reconsideration filed by complainant is DENIED for lack
of merit and the appealed decision AFFIRMED, while the instant petition for
injunction filed by respondent is GRANTED.
However,
respondent Air Philippines Corporation is ordered to pay complainant his unpaid
salaries and allowances in the total amount of P198,502.30 within fifteen (15)
days from receipt of this resolution.[12] (Emphasis supplied)
Displeased
with the modification, APC sought a partial reconsideration of the foregoing resolution[13] but the
NLRC denied the same. In its Resolution of October 11, 2000, the NLRC justifed
the award of unpaid salaries in this manner:
The grant of salaries and allowances to
complainant arose from the order of his reinstatement which is executory even
pending appeal of respondent questioning the same, pursuant to Article 223 of
the Labor Code. In the eyes of the law, complainant was as if actually
working from the date respondent received the copy of the appealed decision of
the Labor Arbiter directing the reinstatement of complainant based on his
finding that the latter was illegally dismissed from employment.[14] (Emphasis supplied)
This prompted APC (hereafter referred
to as petitioner) to file a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of
Appeals to have the December 17, 1999 Resolution of the NLRC partially annulled
and its October 11, 2000 Resolution set aside on the ground that these were
issued with grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner attached to its petition,
certified true copies of the Resolutions of the NLRC dated February 10, 1999,
December 17, 1999 and October 11, 2000 and the Decision of the Labor Arbiter
dated September 16, 1998, and photocopies of the February 24, 1999 notice of
garnishment, March 11, 1999 Order of the Labor Arbiter authorizing Sheriff
Fulgencio Lavarez to implement the writ
of execution, and March 23, 1999 Resolution of the NLRC enjoining
implementation of the writ of execution.[15]
In
a Resolution dated January 11, 2001, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition
for failure of petitioner to “x x x attach copies of all pleadings (such
complaint, answer, position paper) and other material portions of the record as would
support the allegations therein x x x.”[16]
Petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration from the said Resolution and attached to it the pleadings and
portions of the case record required by the Court of Appeals.[17] Zamora (hereafter referred to as respondent)
filed an Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration.[18]
In
a Resolution dated May 23, 2001, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for
reconsideration, thus:
Up
for consideration is petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (pages 64-71 of
the Rollo) of this Court’s resolution of dismissal (page 54, id.), which was
promulgated on January 11, 2001. Considering
private respondent’s undisputed comment on said motion (pages 159-161. id.),
the same is hereby DENIED. The resolution of dismissal stands.[19] (Emphasis supplied)
And so, herein Petition for Review on
Certiorari under Rule 45. Petitioner would have us annul and set aside
the January 11, 2001 and May 23, 2001 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals on
the following grounds:
A. The Honorable Court of Appeals did not
rule in accordance with prevailing laws and jurisprudence when it dismissed the
petition for certiorari filed by petitioner APC on the ground that petitioner
APC supposedly failed to attach copies of all pleadings (such as complaint,
answer, position papers) and other materials portions of the record as would
support the allegations therein.
B. The Honorable Court of Appeals did not
rule in accordance with prevailing laws and jurisprudence when it denied
petitioner APC’s motion for
reconsideration in spite of the fact that petitioner APC submitted copies of
all pleadings and documents mentioned in its petition for certiorari.
C. The Honorable Court of Appeals did not
rule in accordance with prevailing laws and jurisprudence when it denied
petitioner APC’s motion for
reconsideration on a new ground namely, the alleged failure of petitioner APC
to dispute respondent Zamora’s comment
and/or opposition to motion for reconsideration (“Opposition”), in spite of the
fact that (i) the Honorable Court of Appeals did not order petitioner APC to
reply to the said opposition; and (ii) the said Opposition is patently
unmeritorious.[20]
Respondent filed his Comment to the
petition.[21]
We grant the petition.
We agree with petitioner on the first
and second issues.
In
its Resolution of January 11, 2001, the Court of Appeals cited as ground for
the dismissal of the petition for certiorari its lack of certified true
copies of the pleadings and material
portions of the case record. This is an
erroneous ruling, petitioner insists, for the deficiency was excusable:
pleadings and other portions of the case records were not attached to the
petition because these documents had no
bearing on the sole issue raised therein, which was, whether the NLRC committed
grave abuse of discretion in awarding unpaid salaries to respondent despite
having adjudged the latter at fault for abandonment of employment.[22]
Respondent disagrees. He argues that
the requirements under Section 1, Rule 65 are mandatory and jurisdictional;
petitioner’s failure to comply with them was a valid ground for the dismissal
of its petition.[23]
Both views are actually correct.
Certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, the
party seeking it must strictly observe the requirements for its issuance.[24] Some of
these requirements are found in paragraph 2, Section 1 of Rule 65, which reads:
SECTION. 1. Petition
for certiorari.–
x x x x
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution
subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent
thereto x x x.
These requirements are
emphasized in Section 3, Rule 46, thus:
SEC.
3. Contents and filing of petition;
effect of non-compliance with requirements. –
x
x x x
[The
petition] shall be x x x accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate
original or certified true copy of the judgment, order,
resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record as
are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto x x
x.
x
x x x
The failure of the petitioner to
comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for
the dismissal of the petition.
Note that the foregoing rules speak of two sets of documents to be attached
to the petition. The first set consists of certified true copies of the
judgment, order or resolution subject of the petition. Duplicate
originals or certified true copies thereof must be appended to enable the
reviewing court to determine whether the court, body or tribunal, which
rendered the same committed grave abuse of discretion.[25]
The second set consists of the pleadings, portions of the case record and other
documents which are material and pertinent to the petition.[26] Mere
photocopies thereof may be attached to the petition.[27] It is
this second set of documents which is relevant to this case.
As
a general rule, a petition lacking copies of essential pleadings and portions
of the case record may be dismissed.[28] This rule, however, is not
petrified. As the exact nature of
the pleadings and parts of the case
record which must accompany a petition is not specified, much discretion is
left to the appellate court to determine
the necessity for copies of pleading and other documents. [29] There are, however, guideposts it must follow.
First, not all pleadings and parts of
case records are required to be attached to the petition. Only those which are
relevant and pertinent must accompany it. The test of relevancy is whether the
document in question will support the material allegations in the petition,
whether said document will
make out a prima facie case of
grave abuse of discretion as to convince the court to give due course to the
petition.[30]
Second, even if a document is relevant and
pertinent to the petition, it need not be appended if it is shown that the
contents thereof can also found in another document already attached to the
petition. Thus, if the material allegations in a position paper are summarized in
a questioned judgment, it will suffice that only a certified true copy of the
judgment is attached.[31]
Third, a petition lacking an essential pleading or
part of the case record may still be given due course or reinstated (if earlier
dismissed) upon showing that petitioner later submitted the documents required,
[32]
or that it will serve the higher interest of justice that the case be decided
on the merits.[33]
It is readily apparent in this case that the Court
of Appeals was overzealous in its enforcement of the rules.
To begin with, the pleadings and other documents it
required of petitioner were not at all relevant to the petition. It is noted
that the only issue raised by petitioner was whether the NLRC committed grave
abuse of discretion in granting respondent unpaid salaries while declaring him
guilty of abandonment of employment. Certainly, copies of the Resolutions of
the NLRC dated
There was no need at all for copies of the position
papers and other pleadings of the parties; these would have only cluttered the
docket. Besides, a summary of the material allegations in the position papers
can be found in both the September 16, 1998 Decision of the Labor Arbiter and
the February 10, 1999 Resolution of the NLCR. Quick reference to copies of the
decision and resolution would have already satisfied any question the court may
have had regarding the pleadings of the parties.
The attachments of petitioner to its petition for certiorari were already sufficient even without the pleadings
and portions of the case record. It was therefore unreasonable of the Court of
Appeals to have dismissed it. More so that petitioner later corrected the
purported deficiency by submitting copies of the pleadings and other documents.
This brings us to the third issue. Again, we agree
with petitioner that the Court of Appeals erred in denying its motion for
reconsideration.
In
its May 23, 2001 Resolution, the Court of Appeals cited as basis for denying
the motion for reconsideration of petitioner from the January 11, 2000
Resolution the latter’s purported failure to contravene the Opposition filed by
respondent.[34] This
is certainly a curious ground to deny a motion for reconsideration. As pointed
out by petitioner, a reply to an opposition to a motion for reconsideration is
not filed as a matter of course. An order from the court may issue though to
direct the movant to file a reply. In this case, no such order came from the
Court of Appeals instructing petitioner to counter the Opposition filed by
respondent. Hence, it cannot be assumed that in failing to file a reply, petitioner,
in effect, conceded to the Opposition of respondent.
It
is not as if the Opposition which respondent filed required any answer. The
matters discussed therein were not even germane to the issue raised in the
motion for reconsideration. It was as
though respondent passed in silence petitioner’s arguments against the
In
sum, we annul and set aside the
We
hold that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in holding
petitioner liable to respondent for P198,502.30.
The premise of the award of unpaid
salary to respondent is that prior to the reversal by the NLRC of the decision
of the Labor Arbiter, the order of reinstatement embodied therein was already
the subject of an alias writ of execution even pending appeal. Although
petitioner did not comply with this writ of execution, its intransigence made
it liable nonetheless to the salaries of respondent pending appeal. There is logic in this
reasoning of the NLRC. In Roquero
v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., we resolved the same issue as
follows:
We
reiterate the rule that technicalities have no room in labor cases where the
Rules of Court are applied only in a suppletory manner and only to effectuate
the objectives of the Labor Code and not to defeat them.[36][25] Hence, even if the order of
reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on
the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed
employee during the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court. On
the other hand, if the employee has been reinstated during the appeal period
and such reinstatement order is reversed with finality, the employee is not
required to reimburse whatever salary he received for he is entitled to such,
more so if he actually rendered services during the period. [37]
There is a policy elevated in this ruling. In Aris (Phil.)
Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,
we held:
In
short, with respect to decisions reinstating employees, the law itself has
determined a sufficiently overwhelming reason for its execution pending appeal.
x x x x
x x x Then, by and pursuant
to the same power (police power), the State may authorize an immediate
implementation, pending appeal, of a decision reinstating a dismissed or
separated employee since that saving act is designed to stop, although
temporarily since the appeal may be decided in favor of the appellant, a
continuing threat or danger to the survival or even the life of the dismissed
or separated employee and his family.[38]
We
cannot do less. The petition for certiorari
in CA G.R. SP No. 62388 must be dismissed.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is GRANTED. The
Costs
against petitioner.
SO
ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
Chairperson
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution,
it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Floren
Hotel v. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 155264, May 6, 2005, 458 SCRA 128, 142; Caingat v. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 154308. March 10, 2005, 453 SCRA 142, 148-149; Serrano v. Galant Maritime Services, Inc., 455 Phil. 992, 998 (2003).
[2] Quintano
v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 144517,
[3] Rollo, pp. 47-49.
[4] CA rollo, p.75
[5] Id.
at 78-79.
[6] CA rollo, pp. 83-86.
[7] Id. at 42.
[8] Id. at 94-95.
[9] CA rollo, p. 97.
[10] Id. at 36.
[11]
[12] Id. at 33.
[13] Id. at 137.
[14] Id.
at 34.
[15] CA rollo, pp. 26-52.
[16] Id. at 54.
[17] Id. at.63-143.
[18] Id. at 159.
[19] Rollo,
p. 49.
[20] Rollo, p. 21.
[21] Id. at 196.
[22] Id. at 22-31.
[23] Id. at 198-201.
[24] Batelec II Electric Cooperative,
Inc. v. Energy Industry Administration Bureau, G.R. No. 135925, December
22, 2004, 447 SCRA 482, 495; Nayve v. Court of Appeals, 446 Phil. 473,
482-483 (2003).
[25] Durban Apartments Corporation v. Catacutan, G.R. No. 167136, December
14, 2005, 477 SCRA 801, 808.
[26] Teoville Homeowners Association,
Inc. v. Ferriera, G.R. No. 140086. June 8, 2005, 459 SCRA 459, 469.
[27] OSM Shipping Phil., Inc. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, 446 Phil. 793, 802-803 (2003).
[28] Russel, Rizza, Katherine, Lyra,
Ruth, all surnamed de los Santos, v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147912, April 26, 2006; Lanzaderas v.
Amethyst Security and General Services, Inc., 452 Phil. 621, 632
(2003); Sea Power
Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 412 Phil. 603,
611 (2001).
[29] San Miguel Corporation v. Aballa, G.R. No. 149011, June 28,
2005, 461 SCRA 392, 413-414.
[30] Quintano v. National Labor Relations
Commission, supra.
[31] Floren
Hotel v. National Labor Relations Commission,
supra.
[32] Caingat v. National
Labor Relations Commission, supra; Serrano v. Galant Maritime Services, Inc., supra.
[33] Philippine Agila Satellite, Inc.
v. Trinidad-Lichauco, G.R. No. 142362,
[34] Supra.
[35] Jimenez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144449, March
23, 2006.
[37] 449 Phil. 437, 446 (2003).
[38] G.R.
No. 90501, August 5, 1991, 200 SCRA 246, 255.