FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 186257. April 7, 2014.]
EDGAR GUINOO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. MOBILIA PRODUCTS, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated April 7, 2014which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 186257 (Edgar Guinoo, et al., v. Mobilia Products, Inc.). — We resolve the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioners Edgar Guinoo, et al., from the twin Resolutions of the Court of Appeals Cebu City (CA) in CA-G.R. SP. No. 00729. 1
The facts, as culled from the records, are as follows:
Respondent is a company engaged in the manufacture of furniture for export to Japan and the United States. It hired petitioners on separate dates for various positions, including sander, inlayer, warehouse staff and quality assurance staff. On 28 December 2001, petitioners claim that they were furnished notices of termination as part of respondent's retrenchment program. In the notice signed by Chief Operating Officer Boowy Kato, respondent stated that customer purchase orders continued to decline and cause significant losses, despite cost reduction measures enacted by the company. 2
Unprepared for joblessness, petitioners were allegedly constrained to accept the payment of separation pay equivalent to one half month's salary for every year of service. They also accepted their salary for the month of January. They then filed a complaint with the labor arbiter (LA) assailing the validity of the retrenchment on the following grounds: 1) Mobilia Products, Inc. violated the Labor Code when it notified the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) only on 20 December 2001, just a week before the actual retrenchment; and 2) Mobilia Products, Inc. manipulated its own financial statements to reflect losses when in fact, none were incurred. 3
RULING OF THE LABOR ARBITER
The LA dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal. 4 He held that the law authorizes the employer to reduce its workforce in order to prevent business losses as part of the good-faith exercise of management prerogative. In the present ease, the LA found that respondent was able to establish that it was suffering from serious business losses based on financial statements prepared by an independent auditor. The losses totaled P21,258,068. 5 Save for their bare allegation, petitioners were unable to show any iota of evidence that these figures had been manipulated. The LA however, awarded Edilberto Paracuelles, Rogelio Gines and Teodocio Batucan — petitioners who had not received their separation pay — P31,316.95, P26,499, and P27,153, respectively. HIESTA
RULING OF THE NLRC
On appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), petitioners contested the findings of the LA, reiterating that the alleged losses were fabricated. Petitioners also disagreed with the LA's disquisition that the retention of casual employees did not necessarily show any intent to defeat the tenure of the regular employees.
The NLRC affirmed the validity of the dismissal/retrenchment due to serious business losses. 6 It also found that respondent did not fully comply with the requirement of serving a written notice upon the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment. However, upon reconsideration, the DOLE found that there was substantial compliance with the notice requirement. Despite the fact that respondents notified the DOLE only a week before the actual retrenchment, it was fully established that petitioners/employees were paid their salaries until 28 January 2002. Thus, the NLRC held that actual retrenchment was effected only on that date, well after one month from the time that the DOLE and the employees were notified. 7
RULING OF THE CA
Aggrieved, petitioners filed a Petition under Rule 65 with the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in upholding the validity of the retrenchment. Petitioners argued that the retrenchment was based on a hoax. Despite the claim of respondents that the company was suffering from severe losses due to the economic crises and the peso depreciation, the volume of their work purportedly increased. Petitioners were even required to put in four hours of overtime, as shown in the pay slips they presented. They pointed out so-called abuses in the selection of employees to be retrenched, noting that casual employees were retained while long-time regulars were the ones terminated. 8
In its first assailed Resolution, the CA dismissed the Petition outright. 9 It held that petitioners had attached mere photocopies of the Decision of the LA, the position papers of the parties, and other pertinent documents. Petitioners also failed to attach the Complaint they had filed before the LA, and several of them failed to include a Verification and Certification against Non-Forum Shopping. None of the remaining petitioners was authorized to represent and/or sign the Certifications of their co-parties. These deficiencies prompted the appellate court to dismiss the Petition on 20 July 2005. On 14 January 2009, it denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. 10
OUR RULING
We deny the Petition.
Petitioners raise the issue of whether or not the CA committed reversible error in dismissing the Rule 65 Petition on purely technical grounds.
At the outset, the Court observes that petitioners have shown indifference to procedural rules in their petitions not only before the CA, but also before this Court. On 18 March 2009, the Court directed them to submit competent evidence of identities of all affiants in the Verification and Certification pursuant to Sections 6 and 12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as amended by the Resolution in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC. 11 The Court thereafter granted extensions and partial compliances upon counsel's explanation that many petitioners had already moved back to their provinces and that it would take some time to contact them. However, petitioners Rogelio Gines, Antonio Tab, Lucilla Carbajosa, Gerardo Alvarez, Romeo Tizon, Jr., Rufino Bantigue and Christopher Torrejoas still failed to submit any competent evidence of their identities. 12
More importantly, with respect to 36 other petitioners, the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly authorizing Atty. Armando Alforque to sign the Verification and Certification on their behalf pertained only to their petition before the NLRC. In the Reply, itself, petitioners quoted the SPA as authorizing the undersigned counsel "(t)o appear and represent us in the case we filed against our employer, MOBILIA PRODUCTS, INC. and/or BOOWY KATO, now pending before the National Labor Relations Commission Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII docketed as NLRC RAB VII CASE NOS. 01-0022-2002, 01-0101-2002, 01-0233-2002, 02-0347-2002, 02-0449-2002 and 03-0560-2002." 13 This is clearly insufficient. TcIAHS
On this basis alone, the Petition may be dismissed outright. The Rules of Court state that 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. 14 A certification which has been signed by counsel without the proper authorization is defective and constitutes a valid cause for the dismissal of the petition. 15
Nevertheless, even if we were to brush aside these infirmities, we find no reversible error attributable to the appellate court in its denial of the Rule 65 Petition. Petitioners did not submit the proper verification and certification before the CA or the proper authority for their counsel to sign in their behalf — the very error they committed before this Court. In the same way that nothing in the instant petition merits this Court's exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, the CA is by no means compelled to relax the requirements of strict compliance with Rule 65.
Time and again, this Court has strictly enforced the requirement of verification and certification of non-forum shopping under the rules. Verification is required to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct and not merely speculative. 16 As for the Certification against Non-Forum Shopping, it must be executed by petitioner himself and not by counsel, since he is in the best position to know whether he has previously commenced any similar action involving the same issues in any other tribunal or agency. The lack of a certification against forum shopping, unlike that of verification, is generally not cured by its submission after the filing of the petition. 17 In the instant petition, due to the defective authorization, the CA cannot even determine which of the petitioners are still elevating the original case, and which parties have sought other remedies involving the same issues.
Procedural rules serve an important purpose and cannot be arbitrarily disregarded by harking on the policy of liberal construction. Certiorari is an extraordinary prerogative remedy and is never issued as a matter of right. Accordingly, the party who seeks to avail of it must strictly observe the rules laid down by law. 18 Section l, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
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. (Emphasis supplied.)
Petitioners also failed to attach a certified copy of the Decision of the LA. Several relevant pleadings, such as the original Complaint filed before the LA were also missing. There was no effort to remedy this lapse or provide the appellate court with a justification or explanation for the lapse. The requirement of Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to attach relevant pleadings to the petition is read in relation to Section 3, Rule 46, which states that failure to comply with any of the documentary requirements, such as the attachment of relevant pleadings. 19 The court is given discretion to dismiss the petition outright for failure of the petitioner to comply with the requirement to attach relevant pleadings, and generally such action cannot be assailed as constituting either grave abuse of discretion or a reversible error of law. 20
We thus hold that the CA committed no reversible error in its dismissal of a petition on technical grounds. It is well-settled that procedural rules should be treated with utmost respect, since they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases and remedy the worsening problem of delay in the administration of justice. 21 Leniency cannot be accorded, absent any valid and compelling reasons for such procedural lapse. We are not unmindful of exceptional cases where this Court has set aside procedural defects to correct a patent injustice, provided there is an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to at least explain its failure to comply with the rules. 22 However, no such effort has been shown, and no compelling reason is present in this case.
WHEREFORE, the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 20 July 2005 and 14 January 2009 in CA-G.R. SP. No. 00729 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The Resolution dated 20 July 2005 was penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, and concurred in by Associate Justices Arsenio J. Magpale and Enrico A. Lanzanas; rollo, pp. 46-48. The Resolution dated 14 January 2009 was penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta and concurred in by Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Rodil V. Zalameda; rollo, pp. 51-52.
2. Id. at 435.
3. Petitioners, however, failed to attach a copy of the Complaint filed with the labor arbiter.
4. Rollo, pp. 646-651.
5. Id. at 649.
6. Id. at 91-103; Decision of the NLRC promulgated 10 September 2004.
7. Id. at 104-115; Resolution of the NLRC promulgated 31 March 2005.
8. Id. at 53-80; Petition before the CA.
9. Id. at 48.
10. Id. at 51.
11. Id. at 917.
12. Id. at 1014; Resolution dated 13 July 2009.
13. Id. at 1017.
14. 1997 Rules of Court, Rule 7, Sec. 5, par. 2.
15. Fuentebella v. Castro, 526 Phil. 668 (2006).
16. Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corp., G.R. No. 149634, 6 July 2004, 433 SCRA 455, 464.
17. Clavecilla v. Quitain, G.R. No. 147989, 20 February 2006, 482 SCRA 623.
18. Eagle Ridge Golf & Country Club v. Court of Appeals & Eagle Ridge Employees Union (EREU), G.R. No. 178989, 18 March 2010, 616 SCRA 116.
19. Phil. Agila Satellite, Inc. v. Usec. Trinidad-Lichauco, 522 Phil. 565, 582 (2006).
20. Id.
21. Castells v. Saudi Arabian Airlines, G.R. No. 188514, 28 August 2013.
22. Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182626, 4 December 2009, 607 SCRA 752, 769.