SECOND DIVISION
METRO
DRUG DISTRIBUTION, G.R. No. 147478
INC.,
MARSMAN and COMPANY,
INC., JOVEN D. REYES, ISIDRO
M. TARACHAN, BENJAMIN C.
JAVIER, FELIPE C. GUEVARA,
WILFREDO C. ROLDAN AND
GODOFREDO L. LABAY,
Petitioners, Present:
PUNO, J., Chairperson,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
-
v e r s u s - CORONA,
AZCUNA and
GARCIA,
JJ.
NOEL
M. NARCISO,
Respondent. Promulgated:
July 17, 2006
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
x
D E C I S I O N
CORONA, J.:
Before us is a petition for review[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul and set aside the October
12, 2000[2]
and February 6, 2001[3]
resolutions of the Court of Appeals[4]
in CA-G.R. SP No. 61001 entitled Metro Drug Distribution, Inc., Marsman and Company, Inc., et al. v. National Labor
Relations Commission, et al.
The
antecedent facts follow.
An
illegal dismissal complaint was filed by respondent Noel M. Narciso
against petitioners on November 7, 1997.
On
September 25, 1998, labor arbiter Donato G. Quinto, Jr. decided[5]
in favor of petitioners and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
On
May 22, 2000, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the
findings of the labor arbiter but awarded separation pay to respondent. The dispositive
portion of its resolution read:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the
appeal is DISMISSED and the Decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby AFFIRMED
but is MODIFIED to include the award of separation pay to the complainant in
the amount equivalent to one (1) month basic pay of P20,000.00 for every year of service counted from March 1988 up
to the finality of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.[6]
Petitioners
filed a motion for reconsideration[7]
on June 19, 2000 questioning the grant of separation pay. On June 30, 2000, the NLRC denied the motion
for reconsideration.[8]
On
September 28, 2000, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari[9]
under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals. They questioned the NLRC’s grant of separation pay to respondent in the face of
the finding that his dismissal was legal.
On
October 26, 2000, petitioners received the first resolution:
The
petition for certiorari filed by petitioner Metro Drug Distributions, Inc./Marsman and Company, Inc., et
al. is DENIED DUE COURSE and as a consequence DISMISSED for the following
reasons:
1.
The caption of
the petition did not specify all the petitioners as required on Section 1, Rule
7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; and
2.
The
certification against forum shopping was executed and signed by the alleged
Vice-President for Finance and Human Resources without any evidence to prove
his authority from the Board of Directors to represent the petitioner
corporation. Being a defective
certification, it is equivalent to non-compliance with the requirement of
Section 1 par. 2 of Rule 65 and Section 3 par. 3, Rule 46, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
SO ORDERED. [10]
Petitioners
moved for reconsideration on November 6, 2000.[11] On February 21, 2001, petitioners received
the second assailed resolution[12]
denying it. Hence, the present petition for review centered on the following
issues:
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED AND COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DISMISSING THE [CA] PETITION NOTWITHSTANDING THE
FACT THAT:
A.
PETITIONERS
SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH SECTION 1, RULE 7 OF THE RULES OF COURT BY
INDICATING THE NAMES OF ALL THE PETITIONERS IN THE BODY OF THE CA PETITION.
B.
THE LACK OF A
WRITTEN AUTHORITY FROM PETITIONERS’ BOARD OF DIRECTORS DOES NOT RENDER THE
CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING DEFECTIVE.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS DEPARTED FROM THE ACCEPTED AND
USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN THAT IT ISSUED THE FIRST AND SECOND
RESOLUTIONS IN VIOLATION OF THE RULE ON LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE RULES OF
COURT.[13]
We find no merit in the petition.
We
have ruled time and again that litigants should have the amplest opportunity
for a proper and just disposition of their cause – free, as much as possible,
from the constraints of procedural technicalities. Our judicial system encourages full
adjudication of the merits of an appeal.
On the other hand, we also follow the rule that, save for the most
persuasive of reasons, strict compliance with procedural requirements must be
observed to facilitate the orderly administration of justice.[14]
While
litigation is not a game of technicalities and the rules of procedure should
not be enforced at the cost of substantial justice, it does not mean that the
Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random. Procedural rules should
not be belittled or dismissed. Like all
rules, their application is necessary except only for the most persuasive of
reasons.[15]
It
therefore follows that a party invoking a liberal application of the rules of
procedure should at least exert some effort to comply with them.
Here,
petitioners failed to specify all the petitioners in the caption as
required by Section 1, Rule 7[16]
of the Rules of Court. Despite the
dismissal of their petition because of this admitted inadvertence, they carelessly
committed the same mistake in their motion for reconsideration.
The
same error occured with respect to their certificate
against forum shopping which failed to conform to the requirements of Section 1
(2), Rule 65[17]
and Section 3 (3), Rule 46.[18] The appellate court correctly ruled that the
certificate was defective because it was signed by the Vice-President for
Finance and Human Resources without evidence of her authority to represent petitioner corporation and the officers impleaded. Again, despite the dismissal of the petition
on this ground, petitioners repeated the omission in their motion for
reconsideration. They failed to attach
the required proof. The appellate court
therefore found no reason to reconsider the dismissal of the petition.
Petitioners
maintain that the procedural requirements they allegedly disregarded applied
only to original complaints or petitions.
Thus, even if they wanted to comply, they deliberately did not do so in
their motion for reconsideration. We find this explanation unacceptable. In justifying their non-compliance, petitioners
lost sight of the fact that subsequently conforming with
the rules could have cured the procedural defects of their petition and could
have provided a basis for reconsideration. In many instances, courts have
reconsidered petitions initially deficient in form upon an erring party’s
satisfactory explanation and subsequent compliance with the rules.[19]
Petitioners also insist that the Rules of Court did not require the presentation of an authority from the board of directors for the validity of a certification of non-forum shopping. The lack of authority from petitioners’ board of directors should not have affected the validity of the certification considering that it had already been signed by the Vice-President for Finance and Human Resources.
In Zulueta v. Asia Brewery, Inc.,[20]
we held that the requirement for petitioner to sign the certificate of
non-forum shopping applied even to corporations, considering that the mandatory
directives of the Rules of Court made no distinction between natural and
juridical persons.
In
case of a corporation, it has long been settled that the certificate must be
signed for and on its behalf by a specifically authorized officer or agent
who has personal knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed.
We
discussed the rationale behind the rule in National Steel Corporation v.
Court of Appeals:[21]
Unlike natural persons, corporations
may perform physical actions only through properly delegated individuals;
namely, its officers and/or agents.
The corporation, such as the
petitioner, has no powers except those expressly conferred on it by the
Corporation Code and those that are implied or incidental to its
existence. In turn, a corporation
exercises said powers through its board of directors and/ or its duly authorized
officers or agents. Physical acts, like
the signing of documents, can be performed only by natural persons duly
authorized for the purpose by corporate by-laws or by specific act of the board
of directors.[22]
Consequently,
without the needed proof from the board of directors, the certificate would be
considered defective. Thus, in another
case,[23]
we held that even the regular officers of a corporation, like the chairman and
president, may not even know the details required in a certificate of non-forum
shopping; they must therefore be authorized by the board of directors just like
any other officer or agent.
The
right to file a special civil action for certiorari is neither a natural right
nor a part of due process.[24]
The acceptance of a petition for certiorari as well as the grant of due course
thereto is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.[25] We will not therefore disturb the Court of
Appeals’ decision to strictly apply the rules.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is hereby DENIED.
The resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated October 12, 2000 and February 6,
2001 are hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO
ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second
Division
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-16.
[2] Id., pp. 188-189.
[3] Id., pp. 199-201.
[4] Penned by Associate Justice Perlita J. Tria-Tirona, and concurred in by Associate Justices Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis (now retired) and Teodoro P. Regino (now retired) of the Thirteenth Division of the Court of Appeals.
[5] Rollo, pp. 98-121.
[6] Id., pp. 149-160.
[7] Id., pp. 161-169.
[8] Id., p. 170.
[9] Id., pp. 17-30.
[10] See note 2.
[11] Id., pp. 190-197.
[12] See note 3.
[13] Id., pp. 9-10.
[14] PET Plans v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 148287, 23 November 2004, 443 SCRA 510.
[15] Alinabon v. P.P. Ramos Construction and General Services, Inc., Third Division, Minute Resolution, 2 March 2005.
[16] SECTION 1, RULE 7. Caption. – The caption sets forth the name of the court, the title of the
action, and the docket number if assigned.
The title of the action indicates the names of the parties. They shall all be named in the original complaint or petition; but in subsequent pleadings, it shall be sufficient if the name of the first party on each side be stated with an appropriate indication when there are other parties.
Their respective participation in the case shall be indicated.
[17] SECTION 1, RULE 65. Petition for certiorari. – xxx
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, and a sworn certification against non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
[18] SECTION 3, RULE
46. – Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with
requirements. – xxx
xxx xxx xxx
The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a sworn certification that he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.
xxx xxx xxx
[19] Loyola v. Court of Appeals, 315 Phil. 529 (1995); Roadway Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 332 Phil. 733 (1996); Uy v. Landbank of the Philippines, 391 Phil. 303 (2000).
[20] G.R. No. 138137, 8 March 2001, 354 SCRA 100.
[21] 436 Phil. 656 (2002).
[22] Shipside Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143377, 20 February 2001, 352 SCRA 334.
[23] BA Savings Bank v. Sia, 391 Phil. 370 (2000).
[24] NYK International Knitwear Corporation v. NLRC, 445 Phil. 654 (2003).
[25] Serrano v. Galant Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 151833, 7 August 2003, 408 SCRA 523.