Republic of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
MANDAUE GALLEON TRADE,
INC. and GAMALLOSONS TRADERS, INC., represented by FAUSTO B. GAMALLO, Petitioners, - versus - BIENVENIDO ISIDTO, ERWIN
BA-AY, VICTORIANO BENDANILLA, EDUVIGIS GUTIB, JULITO GUTIB, GREGORIO
ORDENISA, DAMIAN RABANAL, ROSITA RABANAL, EUSTAQUIA SIGLOS, PRIMITIVO SIGLAS,
and RODOLFO TORRES Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 181051
Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: July 5,
2010 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
Before the Court is a
petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision[1] dated January 31, 2007 and
the Resolution[2] dated
December 14, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 86209.
The facts of the case are
as follows:
Respondents, alleging that they were employees of
petitioners, filed a case for illegal dismissal and non-payment of overtime
pay, holiday pay, thirteenth (13th) month pay, and service incentive
leave pay against petitioners, Manuel Jose Oyson III and Simonette C. Abao
before the Regional Arbitration Branch VII,
Respondents averred that they started working at Gamallo
Sons, Inc. in 1977 and 1978. In 1980, the firm name was changed to Gamallosons
Traders, Inc. and eventually it became Mandaue Galleon Trade, Inc. The
employees suspected that the adoption and substitution of many firm names was
intended to subvert the labor standard benefits, status, terms, and conditions
of employment.
They claimed that, in order to ensure their availability
for possible twenty-four (24) hour
service, respondents were extended loans to build their houses in petitioners’
compound. Thus, they were on call any time, day or night.
On July 22, 1978, respondents were notified that the
company adopted a policy of voluntary retrenchment, offering employees
separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service.
However, respondents did not avail of the said plan. They asserted that, on March 5, 2001, they
were dismissed from employment without just cause and without due process.
On the other hand, petitioners averred that respondents were
not their employees but were independent contractors who received various
orders from many other furniture manufacturers, and that respondents constructed
their houses and workplaces in the compound owned by another corporation, the
Galleon Agro Realty Development Corporation.
On April 3, 2002, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision,[3]
finding respondents illegally dismissed
from employment. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondents
Mandaue Galleon Trade, Inc. and Gamallosons Traders, Inc. to pay jointly and
severally the complainants as follows:
1. Bienvenido Isidto P 95,200.00
2. Erwin Ba-ay
P 57,500.00
3. Victoriano Bendanilla P 75,000.00
4. Eduveges Gutib
P 90,000.00
5. Julito Gutib
P 90,000.00
6. Gregorio Ordanisa P 85,000.00
7. Damian Rabanal P 85,000.00
8. Rosita Rabanal P 85,000.00
9. Eustaquia Siglos
P 85,000.00
10. Primitivo Siglos P 85,000.00
11. Rodolfo Torres P 85,000.00
Total
P917,700.00
The
other claims and the case against respondents Manuel Jose Oyson and Simonette
Abao are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO
ORDERED.[4]
The Labor Arbiter ruled that respondents were indeed
employees of petitioners. He ratiocinated that aside from the bare allegations
of petitioners that respondents were independent contractors and had contracted
work from other furniture manufacturers, no proof was presented to establish the same. By petitioners’ own
admission, it was proven that respondents were provided with houses and
workplaces in the compound of the sister company of petitioners. Illegal
dismissal was established by the fact that respondents were not given work by
petitioners and by the demand of the general manager of petitioners for
respondents to vacate the place where they constructed their houses.
Petitioners filed an appeal before the NLRC. However, they
failed to attach a certification of non-forum shopping to their notice of
appeal, as required by Section 4, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure. Thus, on December 4, 2003, the NLRC
issued a resolution[5]
dismissing petitioners’ appeal for being fatally defective, and the decision of the Labor Arbiter
was affirmed in toto with finality. Petitioners
filed a motion for reconsideration. However, the same was denied in a resolution[6]
dated May 27, 2004.
On March 15, 2005, an Entry of Judgment was issued by the
NLRC, stating that, pursuant to the Internal Rules of the Commission, the
December 4, 2003 NLRC resolution had become final and executory on July 17,
2004.
Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court before the CA. On January 31, 2007, the CA rendered a Decision,[7]
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. Consequently, the assailed
Resolutions dated December 4, 2003 and
May 27, 2004, respectively of public respondent NLRC are hereby AFFIRMED.[8]
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. But the
same was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated December 14, 2007.
Hence, this petition.
Petitioners present this sole issue for our resolution:
WHETHER OR
NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN AFFIRMING
THE DECISION OF THE NLRC DENYING PETITIONERS’ APPEAL ON MERE TECHNICALITY
DESPITE THE EXISTENCE OF MERITORIOUS CASE OF THE PETITIONERS.[9]
The appeal is devoid of merit.
Section 4(a), Rule VI of The New Rules of Procedure of the
NLRC[10]
prescribes, viz.:
SECTION 4.
REQUISITES FOR PERFECTION OF APPEAL. - (a) The Appeal shall be filed within the
reglementary period as provided in Section 1 of this Rule; shall be verified by
appellant himself in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules
of Court, with proof of payment of the required appeal fee and the
posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; shall
be accompanied by memorandum of appeal in three (3) legibly typewritten copies
which shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof;
the relief prayed for; and a statement of the date when the appellant received
the appealed decision, resolution or order and a certificate of non-forum
shopping with proof of service on the other party of such appeal. A mere notice
of appeal without complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not
stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal.
Based on the foregoing, a certificate of non-forum shopping
is a requisite for the perfection of an appeal, and non-compliance therewith
shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal.
In the instant case, petitioners aver that the CA should
have granted the petition and decided the case on the merits, considering that petitioners
complied, albeit belatedly, with the requirement of a certificate of non-forum
shopping.[11]
Petitioners pray for a reversal of the Decision of the CA, without presenting
any special circumstances or compelling reasons why the Court should liberally
apply the Rules in their favor. Petitioners
do not offer any valid or justifiable excuse for their failure to file the
certificate on non-forum shopping together with the notice of appeal.
Administrative Circular No. 28-91, dated February 8, 1994,
issued by the Supreme Court requires that every petition filed with the Supreme
Court or the CA must be accompanied by a certificate of non-forum shopping. Later,
Administrative Circular No.
04-94 was issued and made effective on April 1, 1994.
It expanded the certification requirement to include cases filed in
court and in quasi-judicial agencies. The Court adopted paragraphs (1) and (2)
of Administrative Circular No. 04-94 to become Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure. Significantly, to curb the malpractice of forum
shopping, the rule ordains that a violation thereof would constitute contempt
of court and be a cause for the summary dismissal of the petition, without
prejudice to the taking of appropriate action against the counsel of the party
concerned.[12]
The
filing of a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory in initiatory
pleadings. The subsequent compliance with the requirement does not excuse a
party’s failure to comply therewith in the first instance. In those cases where
the Court excused non-compliance with the requirement to submit a certificate
of non-forum shopping, it found special circumstances or compelling reasons
which made the strict application of the Circular clearly unjustified or
inequitable. In this case, however, the petitioners offered no valid justification
for their failure to comply with the Circular.[13]
In
Spouses Ong v. CA,[14]
we ruled that non-compliance with the required certification is fatal. The
filing of the same is not waived by failing to immediately assert the defect,
and neither is it cured by its belated submission on the ground that the party
was not in any way guilty of actual forum shopping. In cases where the Court
tolerated the deficiency, special circumstances or compelling reasons made the
strict application distinctly unjustified.
In
Altres v. Empleo,[15]
the Court en banc issued guidelines based
on jurisprudential pronouncements respecting non-compliance with the
requirements on, or submission of defective, verification and certification
against forum shopping. The portions thereof which are pertinent to the instant
case are the following:
1) A distinction must be made between
non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification,
and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification
against forum shopping.
2) As to verification, non-compliance
therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally
defective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on the
pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with
the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served
thereby.
3) Verification is deemed substantially
complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the
allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when
matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and
correct.
4) As to certification against forum
shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification,
is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof,
unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial
compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling
reasons.”
Finally,
it bears stressing that while it is true that litigation is not a game of
technicalities and that rules of procedure shall not be strictly enforced at the
cost of substantial justice, it does not mean that the Rules of Court may be
ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and
assessment of the issues and their just resolution. It must be emphasized that
procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance
might have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantial rights. Like all
rules, they are required to be followed, except only for the most persuasive of
reasons.
WHEREFORE, in
view of the foregoing, the Decision dated January 31, 2007 and the Resolution
dated December 14, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 86209 are
hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate
Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate
Justice |
JOSE CATRAL
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
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’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Executive Justice Arsenio J. Magpale, with Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla, concurring; rollo, pp. 264-272.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla, with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Franchito N. Diamante, concurring; rollo, pp. 56-57.
[3] Penned by Labor Arbiter Ernesto F. Carreon; rollo, pp. 74-81.
[4]
[5] Penned by Commissioner Oscar S. Uy, with Commissioner Edgardo M. Enerlan and Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles, concurring; rollo, pp. 84-86.
[6]
[7] Supra note 1.
[8]
[9] Rollo, p. 18.
[10]
The
New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, as amended by NLRC Resolution No. 01-02,
Series of 2002, was the rule of procedure in effect at the time of the
promulgation of the NLRC Resolutions assailed in the instant petition. At
present, the 2005
Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC is
observed in cases filed before the NLRC.
[11] Rollo, p. 19.
[12] Land Car, Inc. v. Bachelor Express, Inc., G.R. No. 154377, December 8, 2003, 417 SCRA 307, 311.
[13] Batoy
v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 50, Loay,
[14] 433 Phil. 490 (2002).
[15] G.R. No. 180986, December 11, 2008, 573 SCRA 583.