FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232518. September 29, 2021.]
EMPIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, petitioner,vs. SONIA V. ROLLODA, NORALYN ROME, MARILOU RAMOS, TRI-UNION INTERNATIONAL CORP. AND/OR ANTONIO HOW, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 29, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232518 (Empire Insurance Company, petitioner v. Sonia V. Rolloda, Noralyn Rome, Marilou Ramos, Tri-Union International Corp. and/or Antonio How, respondents).
This is an appeal by certiorari seeking the nullification of the Court of Appeals' (CA) Resolutions dated April 3, 2017 1 and June 23, 2017. 2 The first assailed resolution dismissed outright the petition for certiorari filed by Empire Insurance Company (petitioner) against the resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Third Division which, in turn, denied petitioner's appeal from the Labor Arbiter's (LA) resolution denying petitioner's manifestation and motion to quash notice of garnishment. The second assailed resolution, on the other hand, denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the first resolution.
Antecedents
The records disclose that on February 28, 2011, LA Lilia S. Savari (LA Savari) rendered a decision in NLRC-NCR Case No. 07-09863-10, entitled "Sonia V Rolloda, Noralyn Rome, and Marilou Ramos, Complainants v. Tri-Union International Corporation/Antonio How, Respondent/s," declaring herein private respondents Sonia S. Rolloda, Noralyn Rome, and Marilou Ramos to have been illegally dismissed, and ordering their reinstatement with payment of backwages. The decision became final and executory on September 20, 2011. 3 LA Savari subsequently issued a Writ of Execution 4 dated April 22, 2013, addressed to Deputy Sheriff Antonio B. Masola (Sheriff Masola), pertinent portions of which state:
NOW, THEREFORE, you are hereby commanded to proceed to Respondents TRI-UNION INTERNATIONAL CORP. and/or ANTONIO HOW, with address at No. 1401 A & H Bldg., Union cor. San Gregorio St., Paco, Manila or anywhere they may be found within the jurisdiction of the Republic of the Philippines and collect from said respondents the amount of ONE MILLION SIX HUNDRED FIFTY[-]THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED ELEVEN PESOS and 90/100 (Php1,653,711.90) representing complainants' awards, plus SIXTEEN THOUSAND THIRTY[-]SEVEN PESOS and 11/100 (Php16,037.11) as execution fee or a total of ONE MILLION SIX HUNDRED SIXTY[-]NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY[-]NINE PESOS (Php1,669,749.00). You may deposit the same to the NLRC Cashier for proper disposition to Complainant in accordance with the usual proper accounting procedure.
In case you fail to collect the said amount in cash from the respondents, you are ordered to cause the satisfaction of the same from the movable goods and chattels or in the absence thereof, from the immovable properties of the respondents not exempt from execution. 5
On July 8, 2013, Sheriff Masola served a Notice of Garnishment 6 to herein petitioner against the bond it supposedly issued and posted by herein respondent Tri-Union International Corporation (Tri-Union). In a Letter 7 dated July 11, 2013, petitioner informed Sheriff Masola that the bond was spurious, as the serial and code numbers that appeared on the face of the notice of garnishment were not registered in petitioner's Bond Registry. Petitioner also wrote a Letter 8 to the LA dated July 31, 2014, informing her that the bond was spurious and that it was a victim of the proliferation of fake bonds. Petitioner asked for a copy of the bond and an opportunity to present further evidence to prove its falsity. In another Letter 9 to the LA dated August 6, 2014, petitioner reiterated that it never issued the bond to Tri-Union, and detailed some irregularities in the bond that would show that it was fake. Conferences were then scheduled to determine how Tri-Union posted the surety bond, but the latter failed to attend. Consequently, petitioner filed a Manifestation and Motion to Quash Notice of Garnishment. 10
In an Order 11 dated July 27, 2016, LA Savari denied the motion. She held that her office was not in a position to declare that the surety bond was fake, and since it was issued to guarantee the payment of therein complainants' award in the event that Tri-Union's appeal would be denied, her office had no other option but to proceed against the surety bond. LA Savari then ordered petitioner to release the amount of P257,397.45 to the sheriff for the partial satisfaction of therein complainants' awards. 12
Undaunted, petitioner filed with the NLRC a Memorandum of Appeal with Application for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order 13 dated August 22, 2016. The case was subsequently docketed as NLRC LAC No. 05-1145-11 (AE-10-16) 14 and raffled to the NLRC Third Division. In a Resolution 15 dated November 21, 2016, the latter denied the appeal for having availed of the wrong remedy. It held that the proper remedy is a petition for extraordinary remedies under Rule XII of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended. 16 The NLRC Third Division also denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration in a Resolution 17 dated January 19, 2017.
Consequently, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari18 with the CA. It argued that the NLRC Third Division committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring that it availed of the wrong remedy, and in denying its appeal against the LA's order denying its motion to quash the notice of garnishment despite having legal basis. 19
The CA Ruling
On April 3, 2017, the CA rendered its first assailed Resolution dismissing outright the petition for certiorari, in this wise:
It appearing that the Petition for Certiorari (with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction) suffers from the following formal defects, namely:
LACKING from the material portions of the records attached to the Petition that would support the allegations therein is the complete records of appealed NLRC LAC Case No. 05-001145-11 (AE-10-16) (RAB Case No. NCR 07-09863-10),
the Court RESOLVED to:
DISMISS the Petition for Certiorari outright. 20 (emphasis in the original)
On June 23, 2017, the CA rendered its second assailed Resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration, "considering that [it] has not cured the defects that the Court observed in the Resolution (i.e.: petitioner did not attach the Order dated 27 July 2016, and the Verified Petition dated 22 August 2016, to the Petition for Certiorari)." 21
Hence, this petition.
Petitioner argues that it had substantially complied with the rules and had submitted the required documents for the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It was not challenging the LA's decision in the labor case, but only the execution of the award against it pursuant to a fake appeal bond. Thus, to require submission of the entire records of the labor case would mean unnecessary use of the CA's valuable time. 22
Moreover, petitioner contends that technicalities should take a backseat to substantive rights. Even assuming that it failed to attach documents which to the mind of the CA were necessary for the resolution of the issues raised in the petition, the outright dismissal of the petition was too harsh a penalty. Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities. 23 In its second assailed resolution, the CA mentioned specific documents that it wanted to be attached to the petition. For expediency and to afford petitioner its day in court, the CA could have just mentioned the said documents in its first assailed resolution instead of requiring the complete records of the case, to give petitioner the opportunity to cure the alleged defects in its petition. 24 Petitioner prays for the Court to reverse and set aside the said CA resolutions and declare the notice of garnishment issued against it null and void. 25
The Court's Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
A party seeking the extraordinary remedy of certiorari must strictly observe the requirements for its issuance. 26 Some of these requirements are found in paragraph 2, Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which reads:
SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. —
xxx xxx xxx
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 x x x.
These requirements are emphasized in Sec. 3, Rule 46, which states:
SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. —
xxx xxx xxx
x x x [The petition] shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
In the case of Air Philippines Corp. v. Zamora, 27 the Court held that, as a general rule, a petition lacking copies of essential pleadings and portions of the case record may be dismissed. However, this is not a rigid rule. As the exact nature of the pleadings and parts of the case record which must accompany a petition is not specified, much discretion is left to the appellate court to determine the necessity for copies of pleadings and other documents. There are, however, guideposts it must follow. Thus:
First, not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to be attached to the petition. Only those which are relevant and pertinent must accompany it. The test of relevancy is whether the document in question will support the material allegations in the petition, whether said document will make out a prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion as to convince the court to give due course to the petition.
Second, even if a document is relevant and pertinent to the petition, it need not be appended if it is shown that the contents thereof can also be found in another document already attached to the petition. Thus, if the material allegations in a position paper are summarized in a questioned judgment, it will suffice that only a certified true copy of the judgment is attached.
Third, a petition lacking an essential pleading or part of the case record may still be given due course or reinstated (if earlier dismissed) upon showing that petitioner later submitted the documents required, or that it will serve the higher interest of justice that the case be decided on the merits. 28
Here, the CA unreasonably enforced the rules.
To begin with, the CA dismissed outright the petition for certiorari for failing to attach "the complete records of appealed NLRC LAC Case No. 05-001145-11 (AE-10-16) (RAB Case No. NCR 07-09863-10)." 29 However, petitioner was not appealing the merits of the labor case, but only the notice of garnishment issued against it in the course of execution of the LA's decision. Essentially, the only issue it raised in the petition was whether the NLRC Third Division committed grave abuse of discretion in denying its appeal for being the wrong remedy and despite its appeal against the LA's order denying the motion to quash the notice of garnishment despite having legal basis. 30 Copies of the NLRC Third Division's Resolutions dated November 21, 2016 and January 19, 2017, would have sufficed for the CA to resolve these issues. In requiring the complete records of the labor case, the CA was asking petitioner to attach pleadings and other documents that were not at all relevant to the petition and which would have only cluttered the docket.
Besides, as shown in its second assailed resolution, the CA was only looking for two documents that were not attached to the petition for certiorari, namely, the Order dated July 27, 2016 of the LA, and the Verified Petition dated August 22, 2016 filed with the NLRC Third Division. Notably, however, the dispositive portion of the LA's order was quoted in the petition for certiorari and the Resolution of the NLRC Third Division dated November 21, 2016 was attached to the petition. A significant discussion in the "Verified Petition" 31 was also reiterated in the body of the petition for certiorari, and some were discussed in the Resolution of the NLRC Third Division dated January 19, 2017, that was also attached to the petition. The crucial issue to consider is whether or not the documents accompanying the petition before the CA sufficiently supported the allegations therein. 32
The Court rules in the affirmative. The documents attached to the petition for certiorari were sufficient to enable the CA to resolve the petition.
As further quoted above, a petition that is lacking an essential part of the record may still be given due course or reinstated upon showing that petitioner had later submitted the documents required. In this case, the CA was not clear on the documents it had required petitioner to submit. While it initially dismissed the petition for certiorari for failure to attach the "complete records" of the labor case, it later on mentioned only two specific documents. The ambiguity in its initial appreciation of the petition prevented petitioner from submitting the required documents.
In the case of Atillo v. Bombay33 which involved a similar issue, the Court held that while it is true that it is petitioner who initially exercises the discretion in selecting the relevant supporting documents to be appended to the petition, it is the CA that will ultimately determine if the supporting documents are sufficient to even make out a prima facie case. In so holding, however, the Court "fairly assumed that the CA took pains x x x to examine the documents attached to the petition so that it could discern whether on the basis of what have been submitted it could already judiciously determine the merits of the petition." 34
Here, it appears that the CA merely cursorily examined the documents attached to the petition when it issued its first assailed resolution, rather than "took pains" to examine the documents to discern whether it could have decided the petition on the basis of what had been submitted. Its inattention should not prejudice petitioner.
If the Court affirms the dismissal of the petition for certiorari on technical grounds and without due consideration of its merits, petitioner would be bound to pay a bond that it claims it did not issue and which was fake. In order to prevent inequity that might arise from the outright denial of the petition, i.e., the affirmance of the notice of garnishment to the detriment of petitioner's right to property and right to be heard, the petition should be reinstated and remanded to the CA for resolution.
The reduction in the number of pending cases is laudable, but if it would be attained by precipitate, if not preposterous, application of technicalities, justice would not be served. What should guide judicial action is the principle that a party-litigant should be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor, or property on technicalities. 35
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Court of Appeals' Resolutions dated April 3, 2017 and June 23, 2017, in CA-G.R. SP No. 150111, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. CA-G.R. SP No. 150111 is REINSTATED with instructions for the Court of Appeals to process and resolve the petition with reasonable dispatch.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 23-24; issued by the Special Fourth Division, composed of Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz, Florito S. Macalino, and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela.
2.Id. at 29-30; penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Florito S. Macalino, concurring.
3.Id. at 95.
4.Id. at 94-97.
5.Id. at 96.
6.Id. at 93.
7.Id. at 50-51.
8.Id. at 52-54.
9.Id. at 55-58.
10.Id. at 60-64.
11.Id. at 68-70.
12.Id. at 69.
13.Id. at 71-89.
14.Id. at 119.
15.Id. at 119-124.
16.Id. at 122.
17.Id. at 136-140.
18.Id. at 141-171.
19.Id. at 148.
20.Id. at 23.
21.Id. at 29-30.
22.Id. at 12-13.
23.Id. at 13-14.
24.Id. at 17.
25.Id.
26.Air Philippines Corp. v. Zamora, 529 Phil. 718, 726 (2006).
27.Id.
28.Id. at 728.
29.Rollo, p. 23.
30.Id. at 148.
31. According to petitioner, what it filed was actually a Verified Petition, albeit captioned as "Memorandum of Appeal with Application for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order"; id. at 71 and 150.
32.Atillo v. Bombay, 404 Phil. 179, 188 (2001).
33.Id.
34.Id. at 188.
35.Dr. Malixi v. Dr. Baltazar, 821 Phil. 423, 446 (2017).