Republic
of the Philippines
Supreme
Court
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
|
SOUTH COTABATO COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION and GAUVAIN J. BENZONAN, Petitioners, - versus - HON.
PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ROLANDO FABRIGAR,
MERLYN VELARDE, VINCE LAMBOC, FELIPE GALINDO, LEONARDO MIGUEL, JULIUS RUBIN,
EDEL RODEROS, MERLYN COLIAO and EDGAR JOPSON, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No.
173326
Present: CORONA, C.J.,
Chairperson, VELASCO,
JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, DEL CASTILLO, and PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: December
15, 2010 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
This a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with application for temporary restraining
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction seeking to set aside the Resolution[1]
dated July 20, 2005 as well as its related Resolution[2]
dated May 22, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00179-MIN. In essence, the same petition likewise seeks
to set aside the Order[3]
dated November 8, 2004 and the Order[4]
dated February 24, 2005 of public respondent Secretary Patricia A. Sto. Tomas
of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) as well as the Order[5]
dated May 20, 2004 of the Regional Director, DOLE Regional XII Office.
The facts of this case, as culled from the Order
dated November 8, 2004 of DOLE Secretary Sto. Tomas, are as follows:
On the basis of a complaint, an inspection was
conducted at the premises of appellant DXCP Radio Station on January 13, 2004,
where the following violations of labor standards laws were noted:
1.
Underpayment of minimum wage;
2.
Underpayment of 13th
month pay;
3.
Non-payment of five (5) days
service incentive leave pay;
4.
Non-remittance of SSS premiums;
5.
Non-payment of rest day premium
pay of some employee;
6.
Non-payment of holiday premium
pay; and
7.
Some employees are paid on
commission basis aside from their allowances.
A copy of the Notice of Inspection Results was
explained to and received by Tony Ladorna for appellants. Later on, or on
January 16, 200[4], another copy of the Notice of Inspection Results was
received by Felipe S. Galindo, Technical Supervisor of appellant DXCP. The
Notice of Inspection Results required the appellants to effect restitution
and/or correction of the above violations within five (5) calendar days from
receipt of the Notice. Likewise, appellants were informed that any questions on
the findings should be submitted within five (5) working days from receipts of
the Notice.
A summary investigation was scheduled on March 3,
2004, where only appellees appeared, while appellants failed to appear despite
due notice. Another hearing was held on April 1, 2004, where appellees
appeared, while a certain Nona Gido appeared in behalf of Atty. Thomas Jacobo.
Ms. Gido sought to re-schedule the hearing, which the hearing officer denied.
On May 20, 2004, the Regional Director issued the
assailed Order, directing appellants to pay appellees the aggregate amount of
Seven Hundred Fifty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Two Pesos
(Php759,752.00).[6]
The dispositive portion of the Order dated May 20,
2004 of the Regional Director of the DOLE Region XII Office reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent DXCP Radio Station
and/or Engr. Gauvain Benzonan, President, is hereby ordered to pay the seven
(7) affected workers of their Salary Differential, Underpayment of 13th
Month Pay, Five (5) days Service Incentive Leave Pay, Rest Day Premium Pay and
Holiday Premium Pay in the total amount of SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE THOUSAND SEVEN
HUNDRED FIFTY-TWO PESOS (P759,752.00), Philippine
Currency as indicated in the Annex “A” hereof and to submit proof of compliance
to the Department of Labor and Employment, Regional Office No. XII, Cotabato
City within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of this Order.[7]
Petitioners appealed their case to then DOLE
Secretary Sto. Tomas. However, this appeal was dismissed in an Order dated
November 8, 2004 wherein the Secretary ruled that, contrary to their claim,
petitioners were not denied due process as they were given reasonable
opportunity to present evidence in support of their defense in the
administrative proceeding before the Regional Director of DOLE Region XII
Office. The dispositive portion of the
said Order follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal by DXCP Radio
Station and Engr. Gauvain Benzonan is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Order dated May 24, 2004 of
the Regional Director, directing appellants to pay the nine (9) appellees the
aggregate amount of Seven Hundred Fifty-Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty-Two
Pesos (Php759,752.00), representing their claims for wage differentials, 13th
month pay differentials, service incentive leave pay, holiday premium and rest
day premium, is AFFIRMED.[8]
Undeterred, petitioners filed a Motion for
Reconsideration with the DOLE Secretary but this was denied in an Order dated
February 24, 2005, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by DXCP Radio Station and Engr. Gauvain Benzonan, is
hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Our Order dated November 8,
2004, affirming the Order dated May 20, 2004 of the OIC-Director, Regional
Office No. 12, directing appellants to pay Rolando Fabrigar and eight (8)
others, the aggregate amount of Seven Hundred Fifty-Nine Thousand Seven Hundred
Fifty-Two Pesos (Php759,752.00), representing their claims for wage and 13th
month pay differentials, service incentive leave pay, holiday pay and rest day
premium, is AFFIRMED.[9]
In light of this setback, petitioners elevated their
case to the Court of Appeals but their petition was dismissed in the assailed
Court of Appeals Resolution dated July 20, 2005 because of several procedural
infirmities that were explicitly cited in the same, to wit:
1. The
petition was not properly verified and the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping
was not executed by the plaintiff or principal party in violation of Sections 4
and 5 of Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as the affiant therein
was not duly authorized to represent the corporation. Such procedural lapse
renders the entire pleading of no legal effect and is dismissible. Sections 4
and 5 of Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provide:
SEC. 4. Verification. – Except when otherwise
specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath,
verified or accompanied by affidavit.
A
pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleadings
and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge
or based on authentic records.
A pleading
required to be verified which contains a verification based on “information and
belief” or upon “knowledge, information and belief” or lacks a proper
verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. x x x.
SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. – The plaintiff or
principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory
pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed
thereto and simultaneously filed therewith:
x x x x
Failure to
comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment
of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion
and after hearing. The submission of a false
certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall
constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding
administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel
clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be
ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct
contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions. x x x.
2. Annexes
A, B, C, E and its attachments and F are not certified true copies contrary to
Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which provides:
SECTION 1. Petition for Certiorari. – x x x
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, and a sworn certification of
non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. x
x x.
3. Petitioner’s
counsel failed to indicate the date of issue of his IBP Official Receipt. As
provided for under Bar Matter 287 dated September 26, 2000:
“All pleadings, motions and papers filed in court
whether personally or by mail shall bear counsel’s current IBP official receipt
number and date of issue otherwise, such pleadings, motions and paper may not
be acted upon by the court,
without prejudice to whatever disciplinary action the court may take against
the erring counsel who shall likewise be required to comply with the such (sic)
requirement within five (5) days from notice. Failure to comply with such
requirement shall be ground for further disciplinary sanction and for contempt
of court.” x x x.[10]
Petitioners then filed a Motion for Reconsideration
and the Court of Appeals ruled in its assailed Resolution dated May 22, 2006
that petitioners’ subsequent submission made them substantially comply with the
second and third procedural errors that were mentioned in the Court of Appeals
Resolution dated July 20, 2005. However,
the Court of Appeals also ruled that, with regard to the first procedural
error, petitioners’ justification does not deserve merit reasoning that
“[w]hile it may be true that there are two (2) petitioners and that petitioner
Gauvain Benzonan signed the verification and the certificate of non-forum
shopping of the petition, the records show that petitioner Gauvain Benzonan did
not initiate the petition in his own capacity to protect his personal interest
in the case but was, in fact, only acting for and in the corporation’s behalf
as its president.”[11] Thus, the Court of Appeals noted that
“[h]aving acted in the corporation’s behalf, petitioner Benzonan should have
been clothed with the corporation’s board resolution authorizing him to
institute the petition.”[12]
The Court of Appeals likewise ruled that
petitioners’ attachment of a “Secretary’s Certificate” to their Motion for
Reconsideration (purportedly to remedy the first procedural mistake in their
petition for certiorari under Rule 65) was insufficient since their
submission merely authorized petitioner Benzonan “to represent the corporation
and cause the preparation and filing of a Motion for Reconsideration before the
Court of Appeals.”[13]
Consequently, petitioners filed the instant petition
wherein they raised the following issues:
a.
Whether the Court of Appeals
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
when it dismissed the Petition for Certiorari and denied the Motion for
Reconsideration on its finding that the petition was not properly verified and
the certification of non-forum shopping was not executed by the principal party
allegedly in violation of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure?
b.
Whether petitioners were denied
due process of law in the proceedings before the Regional Director and the
Office of the Secretary, both of the Department of Labor and Employment?
c.
Whether there was sufficient
basis in the Order issued by the Regional Director, DOLE, Regional Office No.
XII, dated May 20, 2004?[14]
Anent the first procedural issue, the Court had
summarized the jurisprudential principles on the matter in Cagayan Valley
Drug Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.[15] In said case, we held that a President of a
corporation, among other enumerated corporate officers and employees, can sign
the verification and certification against of non-forum shopping in behalf of
the said corporation without the benefit of a board resolution. We quote the pertinent portion of the
decision here:
It must be borne in mind that Sec. 23, in relation
to Sec. 25 of the Corporation Code, clearly enunciates that all corporate
powers are exercised, all business conducted, and all properties controlled by
the board of directors. A corporation has a separate and distinct personality
from its directors and officers and can only exercise its corporate powers
through the board of directors. Thus, it is clear that an individual corporate
officer cannot solely exercise any corporate power pertaining to the
corporation without authority from the board of directors. This has been our
constant holding in cases instituted by a corporation.
In a slew of cases, however, we have recognized the
authority of some corporate officers to sign the verification and certification
against forum shopping. In Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. CA,
we recognized the authority of a general manager or acting general manager to
sign the verification and certificate against forum shopping; in Pfizer v.
Galan, we upheld the validity of a verification signed by an “employment
specialist” who had not even presented any proof of her authority to represent
the company; in Novelty Philippines, Inc. v. CA, we ruled that a
personnel officer who signed the petition but did not attach the authority from
the company is authorized to sign the verification and non-forum shopping
certificate; and in Lepanto
Consolidated Mining Company v. WMC Resources International Pty. Ltd. (Lepanto),
we ruled that the Chairperson of the Board and President of the Company can
sign the verification and certificate against non-forum shopping even without
the submission of the board’s authorization.
In sum, we have held that the following officials or
employees of the company can sign the verification and certification without
need of a board resolution: (1) the Chairperson of the Board of Directors, (2) the President of a corporation, (3) the General Manager or Acting General Manager,
(4) Personnel Officer, and (5) an Employment Specialist in a labor case.
While the above cases do not provide a complete
listing of authorized signatories to the verification and certification
required by the rules, the determination of the sufficiency of the authority
was done on a case to case basis. The rationale applied in the foregoing cases
is to justify the authority of corporate officers or representatives of the
corporation to sign the verification or certificate against forum shopping,
being “in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the
allegations in the petition.”[16]
(Emphases supplied.)
It must be stressed, however, that the Cagayan ruling qualified that the better
procedure is still to append a board resolution to the complaint or petition to
obviate questions regarding the authority of the signatory of the verification
and certification.[17]
Nonetheless, under the circumstances of this case,
it bears reiterating that the requirement of the certification of non-forum
shopping is rooted in the principle that a party-litigant shall not be allowed
to pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora, as this practice is
detrimental to an orderly judicial procedure.
However, the Court has relaxed, under justifiable circumstances, the rule
requiring the submission of such certification considering that, although it is
obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.
Not being jurisdictional, it can be relaxed under the rule of
substantial compliance.[18]
In the case at bar, the Court holds that there has
been substantial compliance with Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Revised
Rules on Civil Procedure on the petitioners’ part in consonance with our ruling
in the Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. WMC Resources International
PTY LTD.[19] that we
laid down in 2003 with the rationale that the President of
petitioner-corporation is in a position to verify the truthfulness and
correctness of the allegations in the petition.
Petitioner Benzonan clearly satisfies the aforementioned jurisprudential
requirement because he is the President of petitioner South Cotabato
Communications Corporation. Moreover, he is also named as co-respondent of
petitioner-corporation in the labor case which is the subject matter of the
special civil action for certiorari filed in the Court of Appeals.
Clearly, it was error on the part
of the Court of Appeals to dismiss petitioners’ special civil action for certiorari
despite substantial compliance with the rules on procedure. For unduly
upholding technicalities at the expense of a just resolution of the case,
normal procedure dictates that the Court of Appeals should be tasked with
properly disposing the petition, a second time around, on the merits.
The Court is mindful of previous
rulings which instructs us that when there is enough basis on which a proper
evaluation of the merits can be made, we may dispense with the time-consuming
procedure in order to prevent further delays in the disposition of the case.[20] However, based on the nature of the two
remaining issues propounded before the Court which involve factual issues and
given the inadequacy of the records, pleadings, and other evidence available
before us to properly resolve those questions, we are constrained to refrain
from passing upon them.
After all, the Court has stressed that its jurisdiction in a petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited
to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the findings of fact
complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record, or the assailed
judgment is based on the misapprehension of facts.[21]
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY
GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of
Appeals are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Court of
Appeals for proper disposition of CA-G.R. SP No. 00179-MIN.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
|
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, pp. 169-171; penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. with Associate Justices Arturo G. Tayag and Normandie B. Pizarro concurring.
[2] Id. at 200-204; penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Normandie B. Pizarro concurring.
[3] Id. at 81-84.
[4] Id. at 140-141.
[5] Id. at 58-61.
[6] Id. at 81-82.
[7] Id. at 61.
[8] Id. at 83-84.
[9] Id. at 141.
[10] Id. at 169-171.
[11] Id. at 201.
[12] Id. at 202.
[13] Id. at 183.
[14] Id. at 28-29.
[15] G.R. No. 151413, February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 10.
[16] Id. at 17-19.
[17] Id. at 19.
[18] PNCC Skyway Traffic Management and Security Division Workers Organization (PSTMSDWO) v. PNCC Skyway Corporation, G.R. No. 171231, February 17, 2010.
[19] G.R. No. 153885, September 24, 2003, 412 SCRA 101, 109.
[20] Somoso v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 78050, October 23, 1989, 178 SCRA 654, 663; Bach v. Ongkiko, Kalaw, Manhit & Acorda Law Offices, G.R. No. 160334, September 11, 2006, 501 SCRA 419, 426.
[21] Buenventura v. Pascual, G.R. No. 168819, November 27, 2008, 572 SCRA 143, 157.