Trading v. Orosco

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 206786. August 7, 2013.]

ABORDO TRADING, EDNA ABORDO, JANICE ABORDO AND JENIFER ABORDO, petitioners, vs. GLORIVIC P. OROSCO, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 August 2013 which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 206786 (ABORDO TRADING, EDNA ABORDO, JANICE ABORDO AND JENIFER ABORDO, petitioners, v.GLORIVIC P. OROSCO, respondent).

This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to annul and set aside the 30 October 2012 and 3 April 2013 Resolutions 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) and the resolution dated 14 May 2012 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

ANTECEDENTS:

Glorivic Orosco (respondent) filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and other money claims against Abordo Trading/Edna, Janice and Jennifer Abordo (petitioners) before the NLRC Regional Arbitration, Branch V, Legazpi City on 18 July 2011.

On 16 December 2011, Labor Arbiter Jesus Quiñones rendered a Decision in favor of petitioners and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.

On appeal, the NLRC, through its Third Division, affirmed the findings of the labor arbiter that there was no illegal dismissal. It, however, modified the decision to include the award of salary differential and 13th month pay to respondent, as follows:

13th Mo. Pay:
	12/4/2009 - 10/31/2010
	239 x 30 x 10.9/12	=	6,512.75
	11/1/2010 - 7/9/2011	=	5,106.73
Salary Differential:
	12/4/2009 - 6/30/2010
	239 - 100 = 139 x 30 x 6.87	=	28,647.90
	247 - 100 = 147 x 30 x 12.27	=	54,110.70
			———————————
	TOTAL	P94,378.08 2
			==========

Petitioners filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration focused on the alleged error of the NLRC in applying the minimum wage rate prevailing in the area of operation in computing the monetary award for 13th month pay and salary differential. They claimed that the NLRC erroneously applied the minimum wage rate prevailing in the Cities of Legazpi, Naga, Iriga and Tabaco and municipalities of Pili and Daraga. Petitioners maintained that Guinobatan, Albay falls under the category of "All other Areas." EDIaSH

On 23 July 2012, the NLRC denied with finality petitioners' motion for partial reconsideration.

On 17 September 2012, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA.

In a Resolution dated 30 October 2012, the CA dismissed the petition in view of the following procedural defects:

1)The petition does not state the material dates showing when the motion for reconsideration was filed in violation of Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court;

2)The following pertinent pleadings were not attached to the petition: a.) private respondent's Position Paper; b.) petitioners' appeal memorandum; and c.) private respondent's memorandum;

3)The NLRC's 14 May 2012 Decision is incomplete as page one (1) thereof is missing; and

4)The Jurat in the Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping page is defective since there is no competent evidence of the identities of affiants Janice Abordo and Jennifer Abordo in violation of Rule II, Section 12 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. 3

xxx xxx xxx.

Petitioners moved for reconsideration on 23 November 2012.

On 3 April 2013, the CA issued a resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration. DACaTI

Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court raising the following issues:

Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition despite that petitioners timely rectified its procedural infirmities in compliance with procedural rules via motion for reconsideration.

Whether the NLRC correctly applied the Minimum Wage Law prevailing in the area in computing the monetary award due the respondent.

OUR RULING

We find the petition bereft of merit. CcTIDH

We have ruled time and again that litigants should have the amplest opportunity for a proper and just disposition of their cause — free, as much as possible, from the constraints of procedural technicalities. Our judicial system encourages full adjudication of the merits of an appeal. On the other hand, we also follow the rule that, save for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance with procedural requirements must be observed to facilitate the orderly administration of justice. 4

While litigation is not a game of technicalities and the rules of procedure should not be enforced at the cost of substantial justice, it does not mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random. Procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed. 5 Like all rules, procedural rules should be followed except only when, for the most persuasive of reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure. 6 In this case, other than their allegation of inadvertence, petitioners failed to show any persuasive reason why they should be exempted.

Further, we note that in denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration, the CA stated that "petitioners' petition for certiorari was dismissed due to several procedural infirmities and these defects were brought to their attention through the assailed resolution. Despite being properly notified of their glaring procedural lapses, petitioners blatantly refused and failed to rectify said infirmities. We cannot sanction petitioners' utter disregard of procedural rules, . . . ." 7

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 30 October 2012 and 3 April 2013 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 23-24 and 26-27; Both penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion with Associate Justices Vicente E. Veloso and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. concurring.

2.Id. at 5-6.

3.Id. at 23-24.

4.Metro Drug Distribution, Inc. v. Noel Narciso, G.R. No. 147478, 17 July 2006, 495 SCRA 286, 290 citing PET Plans v. CA, G.R. No. 148287, 23 November 2004, 443 SCRA 510.

5.Id. citing Alinabon v. P.P. Ramos Construction and General Services, Inc., Minute Resolution, 2 March 2005.

6.Social Security System v. Chavez, G.R. No. 151259, 13 October 2004, 440 SCRA 269, 276.

7.Rollo, p. 27.