MARIO
SUAN, ET AL., G.R. No. 150819
Petitioners,
Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
-
versus - Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
COURT
OF APPEALS,
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
PASCUAL
LINER, INC., MANUEL
PASCUAL,
JR., RODOLFO PASCUAL,
ROLANDO PASCUAL, ERLINDA Promulgated:
SORIANO, and MELY BAUTISTA,
Respondents. July 27, 2006
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga,
J.:
Petitioners assail the Resolution[1] of
the Court of Appeals dated February 28, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 62621, which
dismissed their petition for certiorari for failure to attach thereto certain
relevant documents and pleadings, and failure of counsel to indicate in the
petition his PTR number, as well as the Resolution[2] dated
November 7, 2001, which denied their motion for reconsideration.
A better understanding of this case
necessitates a look at the related case of PASVIL/Pascual Liner, Inc.
Workers Union-NAFLU v. NLRC.[3]
Petitioner union in that case filed a notice of strike with the
National Conciliation and Mediation Board-National Capital Region (NCMB-NCR) against
respondent PASVIL/Pascual Liner, Inc. (PASVIL) for unfair labor practices
consisting of union busting, discrimination and discouraging union
membership. After a series of
conciliation conferences which failed to amicably settle the dispute, petitioner
union staged a strike.
Then Secretary of Labor and
Employment Nieves Confesor (Secretary Confesor) assumed jurisdiction over the
dispute pursuant to Art. 263, par. (g) of the Labor Code and certified it to
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration. Secretary Confesor also directed all striking
workers to return to work within 24 hours and for PASVIL to accept them back
under the same terms and conditions of employment prevailing before the
strike. She further ordered the parties
to cease and desist from committing acts that would prejudice the other party
or exacerbate the situation.
Notwithstanding these orders,
petitioner union continued to picket and barricade PASVIL’s premises thereby
preventing the workers who wanted to report back to work from entering the
premises. Secretary Confesor reiterated
her directives and deputized the Station Commander of the Novaliches Police
Station to assist in the orderly and peaceful enforcement of her order,
including the removal of all forms of obstruction and barricades to ensure free
ingress to or egress from PASVIL’s premises.
Conciliation
conferences were thereafter scheduled on March 28 and
On
January 15, 1996, the NLRC declared the still-ongoing strike illegal and deemed
the union officers who acted as leaders thereof, namely: President Donato
Bugtong, Vice President Pedro Fernando, Secretary Rodante Ambas, Treasurer
Rodolfo Pascual, Auditor Felizardo Gaspar, Spokesman Conrado Clemente and Board
Members Ponciano Gabriel, Sr., Roberto Espejon,
Marcelo Mojar, Jr., Arnulfo German, Jose Ogao, Arnel Fortaleza, Merlito Dela
Cruz, Rommel Buenavente, Manuel Trinidad, Joselito Mendiola, Pedro Ociones,
Guillermo Naranjo and Fredenill Lazo, to have lost their employment
status. The charge of unfair labor practice
was dismissed for lack of merit.
This
Court affirmed the decision of the NLRC as well as its resolution denying
reconsideration. We found no grave abuse
of discretion on the part of the NLRC when it declared the strike illegal because
Secretary Confesor’s certification of the labor dispute to the NLRC for
compulsory arbitration concomitantly empowered the latter to resolve all
questions and controversies arising therefrom, including cases otherwise
belonging originally and exclusively to the labor arbiter. We likewise agreed with the finding of the
NLRC that members of petitioner union defied the return-to-work order of
Secretary Confesor and are thus deemed to have abandoned their work.
Petitioners in this case, whose names
allegedly do not appear in the list of employees deemed dismissed by the NLRC,
insist that PASVIL persisted in not reinstating them. When they heard of news
that PASVIL will be closing down and its properties will be sold, they
allegedly informed PASVIL of the unconditional lifting of their picket and
pleaded to be allowed to return to work.
PASVIL, however, allegedly refused their request and temporarily closed
its operations on
As
a consequence, a complaint for illegal dismissal docketed as NLRC NCR Case No.
00-03-02435-99 was filed by some 230 complainants on
On appeal, the NLRC noted that only
six (6) of the 230 complainants verified their position paper. They are: Amado Mendoza, Pepito Enriquez,
Salvador Latigay, Valeriano Argarin, Fredenil Lazo, and Romeo Boter. The NLRC also noted that only Mario Suan
verified the reply to the position paper submitted by PASVIL although the Sinumpaang
Salaysay, attached as Annex “A” of the reply, was subscribed and sworn to by
the following complainants: Ramon Cunanan, Francisco Salvo, Ronaldo Adonis,
Roberto Baetiong, Samuel Gabriel, Gerry Gabriel, Crisologo Neo, Mario Suan,
Nelson Reyes, Eduardo Banting, Sonny Barnachea, Salvador Latigay, Danilo Guerrea, Roberto Carullo, Antonio Lusania, Narciso Pelenio,
Anselmo Bulan, Adriano Dano, Leovino Valenzuela, Rolando Dandan, Julio Lusama,
Virgilio Malate, Jose Ogao, Pepito Enriquz, Salinor Bonot, Rolando Lazo,
Roberto Amante, Rufino Dionola, Rufino Quenangan, Avelino Coritana, Joseph
Valenzuela, Pablito Gabriel, Jose Boter, Valeriano Argarin, Fernando Rivera,
Salvador Pusogak, Arthur Ruadap, Felix Demiao, Salvador Mora, Conrado de Luna,
Agustin Ombao, Fely Rebulanan, and Antonio Neo.[4]
The NLRC, therefore, declared that
only those complainants who affixed their signatures, and subscribed and swore
to the pleadings submitted shall be considered as complainants in the case
pursuant to Sec. 9, Rule V of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC.
In its decision affirming the
findings of the labor arbiter, the NLRC cited the fact that on December 10,
1998, PASVIL’s franchise was cancelled by the Land Transportation Franchising
and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), as a result of which, its operations were suspended
indefinitely. The suspension was partially lifted on
These developments led the NLRC to
conclude that the labor arbiter was correct in ruling that there was no illegal
dismissal. The closure of the business operations of PASVIL was due to the
cancellation of its franchise over which it had no control. The NLRC further declared that the
complainants in the case are the very same employees who defied the
return-to-work order of Secretary Confesor and whose employment have been
deemed terminated by reason of their abandonment thereof.[5]
The NLRC denied reconsideration in
its Resolution dated
Petitioners now plead the Court to
relax the application of the rules of procedure to the end that their petition
may be heard on the merits since they have already submitted to the Court of
Appeals the documents which they failed to append to their petition for
certiorari, as well as the PTR number of their counsel. According to them, they
are not among the employees declared by the Court in PASVIL/Pascual Liner,
Inc. Workers Union-NAFLU v. NLRC, supra, to have lost their employment
status. PASVIL’s continued refusal to
reinstate them allegedly amounts to illegal dismissal.
Respondents, in their Private
Respondents’ Comment[8]
dated
Petitioners reiterate their arguments
in their Reply to Private Respondents’ Comment[9]
dated
As required in the Resolution[10]
dated
At the outset, we cite with
displeasure petitioners’ mendacity in stating that they belong to the group of
PASVIL employees who have not been terminated from employment and have not lost
their employment status by reason of our Decision in PASVIL/Pascual Liner,
Inc. Workers Union-NAFLU v. NLRC. A
close look at the Authorization cited in the petition’s verification and
attached thereto as Annex “E”[11]
reveals that at least four (4) of the petitioners, namely: Rodolfo Pascual,
Roberto Espejon, Jose Ogao and Joselito Mendiola, were among those mentioned in
our Decision as having lost their employment status as a consequence of the
illegal strike they staged.
Such reprehensible conduct on the
part of petitioners’ counsel deserves sharp rebuke, a citation for contempt
even, especially considering that this blatant falsehood was repeated in the
Memorandum for Petitioners[12]
dated
The main issue submitted for our
consideration is whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in
dismissing the petition for certiorari on technical grounds. We are of the view that it did.
The second paragraph of Sec. 1, Rule
65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules of Court) mandates that the
petition for certiorari “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 of
non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.”
In the recent and very similar case
of Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.,[13] we held that aside from the assailed
decision, order or resolution, not every pleading or document mentioned in the
petition is required to be submitted, but only those that are pertinent and
relevant to the judgment, order or resolution subject of the petition. The initial determination of what pleadings,
documents or orders are relevant and pertinent to the petition rests on the
petitioner.
If, upon its initial review of the
petition, the Court of Appeals is of the view that additional pleadings,
documents or orders should have been submitted and appended to the petition, it
may: (a) dismiss the petition under the last paragraph of Rule 46 of the Rules
of Court; (b) order the petitioner to submit the required additional pleadings,
documents, or orders within a specific period of time; or (c) order the
petitioner to file an amended petition appending thereto the required
pleadings, documents or orders within a fixed period.[14]
If the appellate court chooses to
dismiss the petition outright and the petitioner files a motion for the
reconsideration of such dismissal, appending thereto the requisite pleadings,
documents or orders/resolutions with an explanation for the failure to append
the required documents to the original petition, this would constitute
substantial compliance with the Rules of Court. The petition should then be reinstated.[15]
In this case, the arguments raised by
the parties are well-discussed in the decision of the NLRC as well as in the
petition for certiorari itself. The documents and pleadings which were not
attached to the petition, such as the (a) petition for certification filed on
June 28, 1994; (b) Notice of Strike filed on August 3, 1994; (c) DOLE
Secretary’s Order issued on February 21, 1994; (d) Motion for Reconsideration
of the NLRC Decision dated January 15, 1996; (e) Petition for Certiorari filed
with the Supreme Court; and (f) Complaint for illegal dismissal docketed as
NLRC-NCR Case No. 20-00-03-02435-99, would certainly have been useful but their
absence would not have prevented a comprehensive review of the case.
These documents pertain principally
to the issue of the legality of the strike conducted by the members of the PASVIL
union which was thoroughly discussed by the Court in PASVIL/Pascual Liner,
Inc. Workers Union-NAFLU v. NLRC, a copy of which the appellate court could
have easily obtained. It is obvious that
the documents and pleadings, the absence of which had caused the dismissal of
the petition for certiorari, are not even altogether indispensable to the
resolution of the case on the merits.
Considering further that these documents
were submitted by petitioners when they filed their motion for reconsideration,
the Court of Appeals should not have denied reconsideration. It is well-settled that the application of
technical rules of procedure may be relaxed to serve the demands of substantial
justice, particularly in labor cases which must be decided according to justice
and equity and the substantial merits of the controversy.[16]
We recognize the need to resolve this
case on the merits in light of the fact that petitioners herein, except Rodolfo
Pascual, Roberto Espejon, Jose Ogao, and Joselito Mendiola, are not among those
whose employment have been terminated and so may be entitled to reinstatement
if indeed they were illegally dismissed.
And if they were dismissed for a just
cause such as abandonment of work, there should be a definitive ruling that the
procedural safeguards have been complied with.
Specifically, there should be a showing that petitioners were furnished
the required two (2) written notices at their last known addresses, which could
have apprised them of the particular acts or omissions for which their
dismissal is sought and informed them of PASVIL’s decision to dismiss them. This
requirement is not a mere formality that may be dispensed with at will. Its
disregard is a matter of serious concern since it constitutes a safeguard of
the highest order in response to man’s innate sense of justice.[17]
On the other hand, if their
termination was for an authorized cause such as the cessation of PASVIL’s
operations, as the NLRC has also seemingly held, the burden of proving that
such cessation is bona fide falls upon PASVIL. In addition, the requirements
that it (a) serve a written notice on the workers and on the Department of
Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the effective date of the
closure, and (b) pay its dismissed employees separation pay equivalent to one
(1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service,
whichever is higher, with a fraction of at least six (6) months to be
considered one (1) whole year, should also be shown to have been complied with.
WHEREFORE, the petition is
GRANTED. The case is hereby REMANDED to
the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
Counsel for petitioners is required
to show cause within ten (10) days from receipt hereof why he should not be
punished for contempt for making false statements in the pleadings filed in
this case, tending to mislead the Court and to degrade the administration of
justice. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
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.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified 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.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief
Justice
[1]Rollo, pp. 27-28; Penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices B.A. Adefuin-Dela Cruz and Rebecca De Guia-Salvador.
[7]Petitioners failed to append to the petition copies of the following documents and pleadings: (a) petition for certification filed on June 28, 1994; (b) Notice of Strike filed on August 3, 1994; (c) DOLE Secretary’s Order issued on February 21, 1994; (d) Motion for Reconsideration of the NLRC Decision dated January 15, 1996; (e) Petition for Certiorari filed with the Supreme Court; and (f) Complaint for illegal dismissal docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 20-00-03-02435-99. Their counsel also failed to indicate his PTR number in the petition.
[16]Havtor Management Phils., Inc. v. NLRC, 423 Phil. 509 (2001); EDI Staff Builders International, Inc. v. Magsino, 411 Phil. 730 (2001).