Technical infirmities
Petitioner Henry E. Yu and 48 others filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims against respondents SR Metals, Inc. (SRMI), Eloisa E. Segarra, Francis Eric Gutierrez, Jimwell Orpilla and Godofredo Nardo.
Not contented with the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA).
The petition was dismissed by the CA for failure to state the date of the filing of the motion for reconsideration before the NLRC and to indicate the serial number of the notary public’s commission in violation of Section 2 (b) and (d) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. They filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied.
Can the dismissal be justified?
Ruling: No.
In this case, there is at least a reasonable attempt at compliance with the rules.
In their motion for reconsideration before the CA, petitioners in fact pointed out that in their motion for reconsideration before the NLRC, a copy of which was attached as Annex “B” of their petition for certiorari before the CA, it was mentioned that their motion for reconsideration was timely filed on Dec. 7, 2012.
As proof, they even attached in their motion for reconsideration before the CA, as Annex “A” thereof, the original copy of registry receipt no. 13543 issued by Robinson’s Ermita Postal Station showing that the mail matter was posted on “Dec 7 2012.”
These substantial compliance should have been sufficient for the CA to reverse its previous ruling and finally resolve the case on its merit. Certainly, petitioners made a persuasive explanation as to the inadvertence and were not obstinate in their non-observance of procedural rules. Such actuation is consistent with their plea for liberality in construing the rules on certiorari.
The same liberality should be applied with respect to petitioners’ failure to indicate the serial number of the notary public’s commission.
In In-N-Out Burger, Inc. v. Sehwani, Inc. and/or Benita’s Frites, Inc., 595 Phil. 1119 (2008), respondents impugned the validity of the notary public’s certificate on Baranda’s verification/certification attached to the petition, noting the absence of the serial number of the commission of the notary public; the office address of the notary public; the roll of attorneys number and the IBP membership number; and a statement that the verification/certification was notarized within the notary public’s territorial jurisdiction, as required under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. In disregarding the challenge, we held:
The Court deems it proper not to focus on the supposed technical infirmities of Atty. Baranda’s Verification. It must be borne in mind that the purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition has been made in good faith; or are true and correct, not merely speculative.
This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and non-compliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective. Indeed, verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional requirement. In the interest of substantial justice, strict observance of proce- dural rules may be dispensed with for compelling reasons.
The procedural lapses cited by the CA do not affect the merits of the petition; procedural rules should have been relaxed to serve substantial justice.
What the CA should have done was to require petitioners’ counsel to submit the lacking information instead of dismissing the case outright. Petitioners, who are merely rank-and-file employees and are mostly, if not all, minimum wage earners, must not be penalized for the honest mistakes of their counsel. They deserve to have their case properly ventilated at the appellate court since what is at stake is their means of livelihood. The Court cannot allow it be taken away from them without giving a chance at a full and judicious review of the case.
Indeed, a strict interpretation of technical rules of procedure that is unduly detrimental to the working class is contrary to the constitutional mandate of affording full protection to labor and enhancing social justice.
The demands of justice require the CA to resolve the issues before it, considering that what is at stake is not only the petitioner’s position, but her very livelihood. Dismissing the petitioner’s appeal could give rise to the impression that the appellate court may be fostering injustice should the appeal turn out to be meritorious. Thus, it is far better and more prudent for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a substantive review of the case on appeal, to attain the ends of justice than to dismiss said appeal on technicalities. (Peralta, J., SC 2nd Division, Henry E. Yu, et.al. vs. SR Metals, Inc. (SRMI), et.al., G.R. No. 214249, September 25, 2017).