JOBEL
ENTERPRISES and/or
MR. BENEDICT LIM, Petitioners,
- versus - NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
(Seventh Division, SR., Respondents. |
G.R. No. 194031
Present:
CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, BRION, *BERSAMIN, PEREZ, and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: August 8, 2011 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
BRION, J.:
We resolve the petition for review on
certiorari[1] before us, seeking the reversal of the
resolutions dated
The Antecedents
The
petitioner Jobel Enterprises (the company)
hired respondent Eric Martinez, Sr. as driver in 2004.
On
On
P300,000.00 as settlement and manifested that he did
not want to work anymore. Thereafter,
The Compulsory Arbitration Rulings
and Related Incidents
On
compulsory arbitration, Labor Arbiter Danna M. Castillon ruled that P479,529.49, and
wage differentials and 13th month pay in the combined amount of P53,363.44.
On
P100,000.00.[5] In
its order of P432,892.93
within ten (10) days.
The
company complied by posting a surety bond in the required amount,[7]
but
The
NLRC dismissed the appeal[12]
and denied the companys subsequent motion for reconsideration.[13]
The company, thereafter, elevated the case to the CA through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court.
The CA Decision
The
CA issued a resolution dismissing the petition on June 9, 2010 for the
petitioners failure to attach to the petition a duplicate original or
certified true copy of the assailed NLRC decision;[14] the
submitted copy was a mere photocopy, in violation of Section 3, Rule 46, in
relation to Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The CA also denied the petitioners plea for
a liberal interpretation of the rules in their motion for reconsideration,[15]
to which the petitioners attached a certified true copy of the assailed NLRC
decision.
The Petition
The
company now asks the Court to set aside the CA rulings on the ground that the
dismissal of the petition was for purely technical reason, which it rectified
when it attached a certified true copy of the assailed NLRC decision to its
motion for reconsideration. The company pleads for understanding, claiming that
its failure to initially comply with the rules was unintentional and was due
purely to the oversight of its counsel who was then rushing the preparation of
the final print of the petition and its attachments, while also working on
other cases.
The Case for
In
his comment dated P500,000.00,
but the company posted a cash bond of only P100,000.00. He adds that
although the company filed a motion to reduce bond, it must be approved by the
NLRC within the same period to perfect an appeal or ten (10) days from receipt
of a copy of the labor arbiters decision. He argues that the company already lost
the right to appeal, since the NLRCs
denial of the motion came after the 10-day appeal period. He stresses that
the filing of a motion to reduce bond does not suspend the running of the
period to appeal.
The Courts Ruling
We find merit in the petition.
We note that this case was dismissed on
purely technical grounds at both the
NLRC and the CA levels, in total disregard of the merits of the case. The NLRC dismissed the companys appeal for
non-perfection for its failure to substantially address the issue of failure
to post the required appeal bond pursuant to Section 6, Rule VI of the 2005
Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC.[17]
In summarily throwing out the appeal, the NLRC apparently forgot that earlier,
or on September 15, 2008, it gave the company ten (10) unextendible days xxx
within which to file an additional cash or surety bond in the amount of FOUR
HUNDRED THIRTY TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY TWO PESOS and 93/100 (P432,892.93)[18]
when it denied the companys motion to reduce bond. The NLRC even warned that [t]heir
failure to post the required bond shall result in the dismissal of the appeal
for non-perfection.[19]
As
earlier mentioned, the company complied with the NLRC directive by posting a
surety bond in the required amount[20]
within the 10-day period; it received a copy of the NLRC resolution directing
it to post an additional cash or surety bond on
We note, too, that the CAs refusal
to consider the petition was the absence of a duplicate original or certified
true copy of the assailed NLRC decision, in violation of Section 3, Rule 46 of
the Rules of Court (in relation to Section 1, Rule 65). The company though corrected the procedural
lapse by attaching a certified copy of the NLRC decision to its motion for
reconsideration. At this point, the CA
should have at least considered the merits of the petitioners case as we did
in Gutierrez v. Secretary of the
Department of Labor and Employment.[23] We
held in that case that while what [were] submitted were mere photocopies[,]
there was substantial compliance with the Rules since petitioner attached to
her Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration certified true copies of the
questioned DOLE Orders.[24]
Our own examination of the records
shows that the companys case is not, on its face, unmeritorious and should
have been considered further to determine what really transpired between the
parties. For instance, the company argued that it did not dismiss P300,000.00,
manifesting at the same time that he no longer wanted to work for the company.
Before the labor arbiter, the company even manifested its willingness to accept
Under these circumstances, we find
that the CA precipitately denied the petition for certiorari based on an overly rigid application of the rules of
procedure. In effect, it sacrificed substance to form in a situation where the
petitioners recourse was not patently frivolous or meritless. This is a matter of substantial justice in
fact, a lack of it that we should not allow to remain uncorrected.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
petition is granted. The assailed resolutions of the Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the National Labor
Relations Commission for its resolution of the petitioners appeal with utmost dispatch.
Costs against respondent Eric Martinez, Sr.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate
Justice |
JOSE Associate Justice |
MARIA
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 Courts Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
*
Designated as Additional Member of the Second Division per Special Order No.
1053 dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 8-19; filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2]
[3]
[4] Decision
dated
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
Decision dated
[13] Rollo, pp. 61-62.
[14] Supra note 2.
[15] Supra note 3.
[16] Rollo, pp. 71-78.
[17] CA rollo, p. 154.
[18]
[19]
[20] Supra note 7.
[21] Supra note 9.
[22] CA rollo, p. 14, pars. 5.5, 5.6 & 5.7.
[23] 488 Phil. 110 (2004).
[24]
[25] Rollo, p. 32.