THIRD DIVISION
|
KIMBERLY INDEPENDENT LABOR
UNION FOR SOLIDARITY, ACTIVISM AND NATIONALISM (KILUSAN) – ORGANIZED LABOR
ASSOCIATIONS IN LINE INDUSTRIES AND AGRICULTURE (OLALIA), AND ERNESTO
FACUNDO, RICARDO QUEJANO (DECEASED), ARMANDO GONZALES, NERIO TUMACDER,
ROLANDO HERNANDEZ, ARSENIO UMAMBAC, ROQUE JIMENEZ (DECEASED), CIRILO MANZANO,
ZALDY FLORANO, ROGELIO SOQUIAT, MARCOS VELASCO, DOROTEO UNADA, SALVADOR
BEROG, ANTONIO GONZALES, DAVID DE GUZMAN, FAUSTO GAPUZ, DOMINADOR ESTEVES,
EDUARDO LAQUERTA, JESSIE MAGBUJOS, NICOLAS APDAN, FRANCISCO SUENA, MARIO
OLIVEROZ, MARCELO ALINDOG, BIENVENIDO DATUIN, PAQUITO GILBUENA, ERNESTO
AQUINO, ANTONIO GUILLERMO, ARTURO REMOQUILLO, DONATO BAGUILOD, BENEDICTO DE
AUSEN, RIZALDY GAPUZ, ARSENIO IZON, ROMEO CRUZ, ORLANDO REMOLACIO, FELIXBERTO
DELA CRUZ, RANDOLFO GUERRERO, ORLANDO DELOS SANTOS, EDGARDO ARAGONES
(DECEASED), JULIO OCRETO, ARNULFO NATINDIM, JESUSA MENDIOLA, NORBERTO
SEPRADO, VICTOR JUSTIMBASTE, CARLITO PABLO, RESTITUTO DEAROZ, ALBERTO
MANAHAN, LEO E. PRUDENTE, ALMARIO ROMINGQUIT, SALOME AMANTE, MARIO MELLOMIDA,
LEONARDO CUNANAN, TERESITO NORTEZ,
PERLINO ESPERIDA, CARLOS PILI, RICARDO HALDOS, ROMEO LIGURAN, ROGELIO DELOS
REYES, FERMIN BERNIL, SANTOS SALAZAR, JOSELITO CASACOP, EFREN CUA, ROGELIO
SURABILLA, PEDRO ODEVELOS, LEOPOLDO SUNGA (DECEASED), LAMBERTO MARINAS, DANTE
ALVIAR, ROGELIO ANZURES, EDILBERTO MIRA, PACIFICO AMA, MARIO RONGALEROS,
ADELO VERGARA, ROLANDO AMIL, MOISES EMPEO, PILIPINO AMIL, ROGEL IGONIA,
NORMANDO IZON, LAURO DONSINGUEZ, VIRGILIO SAN MIGUEL, PEDRO CALINISAN, LEO
BERROYA, EMILIO DAGAROG, REYNALDO MIRANDA, FERNANDO BERROYA, FREDDIE DIONSON,
RUFINO FELICISIMO (DECEASED), JOSEPH CORCOTCHA, CELSO OYTAS, CESAR CALVIRAN,
DANILO CUBEL, GAVINO REYES, RICHARD GILBUENA, GIL S. BAROLA, AZAHARI L.
ABONITA, SANTOS CANTOS, DIOSDADO L. ROSAS, ROLANDO CORTEZ, MELCHOR HUMILDE
and ANTONIO BALANO, Petitioners, - versus - THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. PEDRO C. RAMOS, KIMBERLY-CLARK (PHIL.),
INC., CORNELIO PERLATA, DOMINGO GEVANA, MARINO ABES and LEOPOLDO BAYLON, Respondents. x-------------------------------------------x KIMBERLY-CLARK
(PHILS.), INC., Petitioner, - versus - SECRETARY OF LABOR,
AMBROCIO GRAVADOR, ENRICO PILI, PAQUITO GILBUENA, ROBERTO DEL MUNDO, ALMARIO
ROMINQUIT, ANTONIO BALANO, RIZALDY GAPUZ, RUFINO FELICIANO, RESTITUTO DEAROZ,
FERMIN BERNIL, DANIEL ISIDRO, LEOPOLDO SUNGA, ANTONIO SONGRONES, EDMUND
MAPANOO, SALVADOR SAN MIGUEL, SANTOS CANTOS, JR., EMILIO DAGARAG, NOEL
MULDONG, FELIXBERTO DELA CRUZ, ALBERTO MANAHAN, LUNA ESPIRITU, DONATO
BAQUILOD, FLORENCIO CORREA, CAMILO LEONARDO, GENER MANGIBUNOG, REYNALDO
MIRANDA, ARNEL ZULUETA, PEDRO ODEVILLAS, CONRADO DICHOSO, NELSON ALAMO, ROMEO
LIGUAN, RAYCHARD CARNAJE, FELINO GUANEZ, ANTONIO MARTIN, WALLYFREDO ALZONA,
VICTOR ABANDO, ALFREDO AUSTRIA, NESTOR SEPRADO, RICHARD GILBUENA, EDWIN
SILAYCO, JOSEPH MARCOS, NOEL OMALIN, DANILO DORADO, LUISITO DE JESUS, EFREN
SUMAGUE, CARLOS PILI, MIGUELITO ROA, and KILUSAN-OLALIA, and SHERIFF P.
PAREDES, Respondents. |
G.R. Nos. 149158-59
G.R. No. 156668
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, and NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
Before the
Court are two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The
antecedent facts common to the consolidated cases are as follows:
On
A certification election was
subsequently conducted on
On
On
During the
pendency of G.R. No. 77629, Kimberly dismissed from service several employees
and refused to heed the workers’ grievances,[6]
impelling KILUSAN-OLALIA to stage a strike on
G.R. Nos.
77629 and 78791 were eventually consolidated by this Court and decided on
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in G.R. No. 77629:
1. Ordering the med-arbiter in Case No. R04-OD-M-4-15-86 to open and count the 64 challenged votes, and that the union with the highest number of votes be thereafter declared as the duly elected certified bargaining representative of the regular employees of KIMBERLY;
2. Ordering KIMBERLY to pay the workers who have been regularized their differential pay with respect to minimum wage, cost of living allowance, 13th month pay, and benefits provided for under the applicable collective bargaining agreement from the time they became regular employees.
All other aspects of the decision appealed from, which are not so modified or affected thereby, are hereby AFFIRMED. The temporary restraining order issued in G.R. No. 77629 is hereby made permanent.
The petition filed in G.R. No. 78791 is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.[10]
G.R. Nos. 149158-59
On account of the
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. Declaring the parties to be in pari delicto;
2. Ordering the parties to cease and desist from committing the same or similar acts complained of;
3. Ordering Kimberly Clark (Phil.), (sic) Inc. to reinstate all respondents and counter-complainants listed in Annex “A” hereof, except those who already died, to their former or equivalent positions, without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, either physically or in the payroll, at the option of the company;
4. Ordering Kimberly Clark (Phil.),
(sic) Inc. to pay the respondents and counter-complainants whose names
appear in Annex “A” hereof their respective backwages or separation pay in the
total sum of P2,144,592.08;
5. Ordering Kimberly Clark (Phil.),
(sic) Inc. to pay attorney’s fees in the amount of P214,459.28;
6. All other claims are denied for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[14]
On appeal by both parties, the NLRC
rendered its decision[15]
on
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED in so far as declaring the strike illegal is concerned and the finding that the company is not guilty of unfair labor practice. The same is however modified with our finding: (1) that the in pari delicto doctrine is not applicable to the instant case; (2) that the officers of KILUSAN-OLALIA are hereby declared to have lost their employment status for staging an illegal strike; (3) that the union members listed in Annex “A” are hereby ordered to be paid separation pay at the rate of one half (1/2) month pay for every year of service a fraction of six (6) months is considered one (1) year and in no case it should be less than one (1) month pay computed on the basis of their salary received at the time of dismissal up to and until the promulgation of this decision.
All other claims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[16]
Both parties filed their respective
motions for reconsideration, which were denied by the NLRC.[17]
The NLRC, nonetheless, corrected its computation of the separation pay and made
the following disposition:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, our resolution dated April 28, 1999 is hereby, RECONSIDERED only insofar as the award of separation pay to the respondents is concerned whereby an additional one half (1/2) month pay for every year of service and a fraction of six months is considered one year is hereby ordered to be paid to them as separation pay.
The motions for reconsideration are hereby, DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[18]
Aggrieved,
KILUSAN-OLALIA instituted a Petition for Certiorari[19]
with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 60035.
The records
disclose that Kimberly also filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA questioning the same Orders of the
NLRC. This was docketed as CA-G.R. SP
No. 60001.[20]
On
This Court resolved to DISMISS the above-entitled petition on the following grounds:
– The verification was signed only by petitioners’ president, sans any board resolution or power of attorney authorizing anybody to sign the same and the certificate on non-forum shopping; and
– The attached complaint and amended complaint thereof are not legible copies.
IT IS SO ORDERED.[22]
In the
Resolution dated
I
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE RESPONDENT COURT HAS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE, PATENT AND PALPABLE ERROR IN DISMISSING THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE BASED ON SHEER TECHNICALITY AND NOT IN THE MERIT OF THE PETITION ITSELF.[24]
II
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE RESPONDENT COURT HAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED THE RULES BY SHEER RESORT TO TECHNICALITY.[25]
III
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE RESPONDENT COURT HAS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE, PATENT AND PALPABLE ERROR IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS WITH IT WHEN, OBVIOUSLY, THE UNION PRESIDENT IS DULY AUTHORIZED TO FILE AND SIGN THE SAID PETITION AS WELL AS TO EXECUTE A CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING.[26]
IV
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE RESPONDENT COURT HAS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE, PATENT AND PALPABLE ERROR IN DISMISSING THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE WHEN, OBVIOUSLY, SUCH ACTION WILL UNFAIRLY AND UNDULY PREJUDICED (SIC) THE MEMBERS OF THE PETITIONER UNION AND FAVOR THE RESPONDENT COMPANY WHICH ALSO FILED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WITH THE RESPONDENT COURT ASSAILING THE QUESTIONED JUDGMENT OF THE NLRC.[27]
V
WITH DUE RESPECT,
THE
A. THE COPIES OF THE COMPLAINT AND AMENDED COMPLAINT ARE NOT EXACTLY ILLEGIBLE AS IT COULD BE READ BY NAKED EYES;
B. IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE PETITIONERS BECAUSE THE SAID PLEADINGS WERE PREPARED AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT COMPANY IN THE COURT BELOW;
C. THE SAID PLEADINGS ARE ANCIENT DOCUMENTS HAVING BEEN PREPARED AND FILED SOMETIME ON (sic) JUNE, 1987; AND
D. THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (ANNEX “F”) IS IDENTICAL TO THE CLEAR COPY OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ANNEX “E”) EXCEPT THAT THE ANNEXES THERETO WERE RE-MARKED IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND THE INCLUSIONS OF PARAGRAPHS 14, 15, 16, 17 AND 18 WHICH COULD BE READ BY NAKED EYES.[28]
Petitioners
further prayed for the remand of this case to the CA and its consolidation with
CA-G.R. SP No. 60001.[29]
Due to the
elevation of CA-G.R. SP No. 60035 to this Court, the CA held in abeyance action
on CA-G.R. SP No. 60001 until after this case had been decided with finality.
On the
Decision of the Court dated
ACCORDINGLY, let a partial writ of
execution issue to enforce payment of the sum of (sic) P576,510.57 to the 22 individual workers listed in
ANNEX A of Kimberly’s Comment/Reply dated 31 October 1991 representing their
differential pay with respect to the minimum wage, cost of living allowance, 13th
month pay and benefits provided under the applicable collective bargaining
agreement from the time they became regular employees as above-indicated.
Further, the Bureau of Working Conditions is hereby directed to submit, within twenty (20) days from receipt of this Order, a list of workers who have been regularized and the corresponding benefits owing to them from the time they became regular employees.
SO ORDERED.[31]
Pursuant
thereto, on August 1, 2000, the Bureau of Working Conditions (BWC) submitted its
report finding 47 out of the 76 complainants as entitled to be regularized.[32]
Kimberly
filed a motion for reconsideration of the DOLE Order as well as the BWC Report,
arguing in the main that the decision in G.R. Nos. 77629 and 78791 only
pertained to casuals who had rendered one year of service as of
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration filed by the COMPANY is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. No further motion of the same nature shall be entertained. Further, the Report of computation submitted by the Bureau of Working Conditions is hereby APPROVED and made an integral part of this Order.[34]
Let a writ of execution be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED.[35]
Kimberly,
steadfast in its stand, filed a petition for certiorari[36]
before the appellate court, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 62257 alleging
that the employees who were dismissed due to the illegal strike staged on
On
WHEREFORE,
the instant petition is DISMISSED for failure to show grave abuse of
discretion. The questioned orders dated
SO ORDERED.[39]
With the
denial of its motion for reconsideration,[40]
Kimberly elevated the case before this Court, on the following grounds:
1. The Court of Appeals committed serious error in affirming the ruling of the Secretary of Labor that even casual employees who had not rendered one year of service were considered regular employees, thereby nullifying and disregarding the Honorable Court’s Decision dated May 9, 1990 that only casual employees who had rendered at least one (1) year of service were considered regular employees.
2. The Court of Appeals also gravely erred in upholding the ruling of Labor Secretary that persons not party to the petition in G.R. No. 77629 were entitled to regularization differentials, thereby amending the Honorable Court’s decision.
On the
recommendation[41]
of the Division Clerk of Court and in the interest of an orderly administration
of justice, the Court, on
After
thoroughly studying the voluminous records of these consolidated cases,
however, the Court finds that petitioners KILUSAN-OLALIA, et al. in G.R. Nos.
149158-59 are raising essentially a procedural issue—whether the CA erred
in dismissing the petition on the sheer grounds of non-compliance with the
requirements of the rule on verification and certification against non-forum
shopping, and of non-submission of the legible copies of the pleadings filed in
the labor tribunal. Petitioners have not brought up for our resolution the
substantial issue of the legality of the
On the
other hand, petitioner Kimberly in G.R. No. 156668 raises the issue of the
propriety of the inclusion in the DOLE Order of the two groups of employees:
(1) casuals who have not rendered one year of service as of April 21, 1986, the
filing date of KILUSAN-OLALIA’s petition for certification election; and (2)
the employees who were dismissed due to the illegal strike staged on May 17,
1987 (the subject of G.R. Nos. 149158-59). Kimberly contends in the main that
only those employees who were parties in G.R. Nos. 77629 and 78791 should be
included in the implementation order.
As the
consolidated cases do not involve a common question of law,[43]
the Court resolves to de-consolidate them.
We,
however, note the considerable period of time the case has been pending in this
Court. Thus, we dispose with dispatch
the procedural issues raised in G.R.
Nos. 149158-59.
We find as
sufficient in form the disputed verification and certification against forum shopping.
We have
emphasized, time and again, that verification is a formal, not a jurisdictional
requisite, as it is mainly intended to secure an assurance that the allegations
therein made are done in good faith or are true and correct and not mere
speculation. The Court may order the correction of the pleading, if not
verified, or act on the unverified pleading if the attending circumstances are
such that a strict compliance with the rule may be dispensed with in order that
the ends of justice may be served.[44]
Further, in
rendering justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be,
conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a
backseat vis-à-vis substantive
rights, and not the other way around. This principle finds greater application
in labor cases where social justice should be emphasized.[45]
In the
instant case, despite the fact that Ernesto Facundo, the union president, was
not shown to have been duly authorized to sign the verification on behalf of
the other petitioners, the CA should not have been too strict in the
application of the Rules. Necessarily, Facundo, being the union president, was
in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in
the petition. Further, the petition was signed by the union’s lawyer, who had
been authorized by a majority of the petitioners to represent them and to sign
on their behalf all pleadings and appeals relative to the labor dispute.
With regard
to the certification against forum shopping, suffice it to state that in Cavile v. Heirs of Cavile,[46]
we took cognizance of a petition although its certification was executed and
signed by only one of several petitioners, thus:
The rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case and the signing by only one of them is insufficient. However, the Court has also stressed that the rules on forum shopping, which were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective. The rule of substantial compliance may be availed of with respect to the contents of the certification. This is because the requirement of strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certification of non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded. It does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances.
We
find that the execution by Thomas George Cavile, Sr. in behalf of all the other
petitioners of the certificate of non-forum shopping constitutes substantial
compliance with the Rules. All the
petitioners, being relatives and co-owners of the properties in dispute, share
a common interest thereon. They also share a common defense in the complaint
for partition filed by the respondents. Thus, when they filed the instant
petition, they filed it as a collective, raising only one argument to defend
their rights over the properties in question. There is sufficient basis,
therefore, for Thomas George Cavili, Sr. to speak for and in behalf of his
co-petitioners that they have not filed any action or claim involving the same
issues in another court or tribunal, nor is there other pending action or claim
in another court or tribunal involving the same issues. Moreover, it has been
held that the merits of the substantive aspects of the case may be deemed as
"special circumstance" for the Court to take cognizance of a petition
for review although the certification against forum shopping was executed and
signed by only one of the petitioners.[47]
On the legibility of the attached pleadings, particularly the complaint and the amended complaint, we find that the same may be excused given the antiquity of the said documents. Nevertheless, a perusal of the records reveals that the said pleadings are legible enough. Again, the rules of procedure shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.[48]
While the
right to appeal is a statutory and not a natural right, it is nonetheless an
essential part of our judicial system. Courts are, therefore, advised to
proceed with caution, so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal.
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.[49]
IN VIEW OF
THE FOREGOING, the Court, therefore, resolves, as follows:
1)
The Resolution of the Court, dated
2) In G.R.
Nos. 149158-59: The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The
petition is REMANDED to the Court of
Appeals for adjudication on the merits.
The CA is further DIRECTED TO CONSOLIDATE CA-G.R. SP No. 60035 with
CA-G.R. SP No. 60001, and to resolve the cases with dispatch.
3) As to G.R. No. 156668, the Court will resolve
the same in a separate decision after the de-consolidation.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the
conclusions in the above resolution were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O
N
Pursuant to Article VIII,
Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it
is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above resolution were reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Rollo (G.R. No. 156668), pp. 11-12.
[2]
[3] Rollo (G.R. Nos. 149158-59), p. 38.
[4] The results of the certification election are as follows:
KILUSAN-OLALIA: 246 votes
UKCEO-PTGWO: 266 votes
NO
SPOILED BALLOTS: 4 votes
CHALLENGED BALLOTS: 64 votes
TOTAL: 581 votes (Rollo [G.R. No. 156668], p. 15.)
[5]
[6] CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 60035), pp. 36-39.
[7]
[8]
[9] Kimberly Independent Labor Union for Solidarity, Activism And Nationalism-Organized Labor Association In Line Industries And Agriculture v. Drilon, G.R. Nos. 77629 and 78791, May 9, 1990, 185 SCRA 190, 206.
[10] Kimberly Independent Labor Union for Solidarity, Activism And Nationalism-Organized Labor Association In Line Industries And Agriculture v. Drilon, id. at 206.
[11] Kimberly’s complaint was later
amended on
[12] CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 60035), pp. 198-203.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] On
[21] CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 60035), pp. 531-532.
[22]
[23] In the
motion for extension of time to file petition for review filed before this
Court, the petitioners indicated therein that the docket numbers of the Court
of Appeals’ resolutions they were to question were CA-G.R. SP Nos. 60001 and
60035; hence, the Court allotted two (2) docket numbers for their case.
However, after receipt of the petition for review and the other records of the
case, the Court ascertained that the resolutions being questioned were only those
rendered in CA-G.R. SP No. 60035. Petitioners KILUSAN-OLALIA, et al. were
apparently confused when the CA initially consolidated the two cases, and then
later recalled the order of consolidation as the Eighth Division had already
rendered one of the assailed resolutions dismissing their CA petition.
[24] CA rollo, p. 58.
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43] RULES OF COURT, Rule 31, Section 1.
[44] Joson v. Torres, 352 Phil. 888, 911-912 (1998).
[45] Ballao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
162342,
[46] 448 Phil. 302 (2003).
[47] Cavile
v. Heirs of Cavile, supra, at 311-312.
[48] Mendoza
v. David, G.R. No. 147575,