February 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > February 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 190714 : February 01, 2010] ALEJO POL, JAIME LOPEZ, GASPAR GERALDE, ANASTACIO NIEZ, HERMOGENES TAPICAN, ADRIANO SABELLANO, MARIETO FLORES, JOSE LARISMA, JR., ALEXANDER CORTEZ, ROBERTO FALLER, BERNARDINO GONZALES, FELICIANO CALINAWAN, EFREN CABALLES, ROMEO REMEDIO, JOSEPH CANGA, MANUELITO AWIT, ROMEO DANIEL AND BENJAMIN TUDTUD, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENT :
[G.R. No. 190714 : February 01, 2010]
ALEJO POL, JAIME LOPEZ, GASPAR GERALDE, ANASTACIO NIEZ, HERMOGENES TAPICAN, ADRIANO SABELLANO, MARIETO FLORES, JOSE LARISMA, JR., ALEXANDER CORTEZ, ROBERTO FALLER, BERNARDINO GONZALES, FELICIANO CALINAWAN, EFREN CABALLES, ROMEO REMEDIO, JOSEPH CANGA, MANUELITO AWIT, ROMEO DANIEL AND BENJAMIN TUDTUD, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 01 February 2010:
G.R. No. 190714 - ALEJO POL, JAIME LOPEZ, GASPAR GERALDE, ANASTACIO NIEZ, HERMOGENES TAPICAN, ADRIANO SABELLANO, MARIETO FLORES, JOSE LARISMA, JR., ALEXANDER CORTEZ, ROBERTO FALLER, BERNARDINO GONZALES, FELICIANO CALINAWAN, EFREN CABALLES, ROMEO REMEDIO, JOSEPH CANGA, MANUELITO AWIT, ROMEO DANIEL and BENJAMIN TUDTUD, JR., petitioners, -versus- VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., respondent
We rule in this Resolution on the petitioners' Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of August 10, 2009 and the resolution of December 4, 2009 of the Court of Appeals1[1] (CA) dismissing the petitioners' Rule 65 petition for late filing and for technical deficiencies.[2] The National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) ruling dated June 30, 2008[3] that was challenged before the CA, found that respondent Visayan Electric Company's (VECO) redundancy program was undertaken in good faith and in accordance with all the requirements of the Labor Code, affirming in this regard the appealed ruling of the Labor Arbiter.[4]
After due consideration of the petition and the records of the case, we resolve to deny the petition outright pursuant to our authority under Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. We see no basis to relax our rules of procedure and to exercise liberality in viewing the major procedural transgressions committed, as the petition anyway, on its face, lacks merit.
The CA correctly appreciated and ruled on the technical deficiencies of the petition as the right to appeal or to ask for a review is a mere statutory privilege. Not being a natural right or part of due process, the right to appeal may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the rules provided therefor.[5] Also, the rationale for the strict application of the rules of procedure is to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases. In an age where courts are bedeviled by clogged dockets, these rules need to be followed by appellants with greater fidelity.[6]
We note further that in the NLRC decision submitted to the CA, the respondent company duly discussed the redundancy program with the union (whose membership extends to almost all of the petitioners) during a meeting that most of the petitioners attended. VECO also clarified with the union the separation package to be offered, while the latter duly acknowledged in a Memorandum of Agreement the existence of a valid cause for the company's resort to redundancy.
The NLRC also held that the waivers and quitclaims executed by the petitioners are valid, after observing that the Release, Waiver and Quitclaims were notarized by the petitioners' very own counsel. The attendant circumstances of the execution of the waivers leave the petitioners in no position to question the execution and authenticity of their documented actions.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition outright for obvious lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 1st day of February, 2010.
G.R. No. 190714 - ALEJO POL, JAIME LOPEZ, GASPAR GERALDE, ANASTACIO NIEZ, HERMOGENES TAPICAN, ADRIANO SABELLANO, MARIETO FLORES, JOSE LARISMA, JR., ALEXANDER CORTEZ, ROBERTO FALLER, BERNARDINO GONZALES, FELICIANO CALINAWAN, EFREN CABALLES, ROMEO REMEDIO, JOSEPH CANGA, MANUELITO AWIT, ROMEO DANIEL and BENJAMIN TUDTUD, JR., petitioners, -versus- VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., respondent
We rule in this Resolution on the petitioners' Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of August 10, 2009 and the resolution of December 4, 2009 of the Court of Appeals1[1] (CA) dismissing the petitioners' Rule 65 petition for late filing and for technical deficiencies.[2] The National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) ruling dated June 30, 2008[3] that was challenged before the CA, found that respondent Visayan Electric Company's (VECO) redundancy program was undertaken in good faith and in accordance with all the requirements of the Labor Code, affirming in this regard the appealed ruling of the Labor Arbiter.[4]
After due consideration of the petition and the records of the case, we resolve to deny the petition outright pursuant to our authority under Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. We see no basis to relax our rules of procedure and to exercise liberality in viewing the major procedural transgressions committed, as the petition anyway, on its face, lacks merit.
The CA correctly appreciated and ruled on the technical deficiencies of the petition as the right to appeal or to ask for a review is a mere statutory privilege. Not being a natural right or part of due process, the right to appeal may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the rules provided therefor.[5] Also, the rationale for the strict application of the rules of procedure is to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases. In an age where courts are bedeviled by clogged dockets, these rules need to be followed by appellants with greater fidelity.[6]
We note further that in the NLRC decision submitted to the CA, the respondent company duly discussed the redundancy program with the union (whose membership extends to almost all of the petitioners) during a meeting that most of the petitioners attended. VECO also clarified with the union the separation package to be offered, while the latter duly acknowledged in a Memorandum of Agreement the existence of a valid cause for the company's resort to redundancy.
The NLRC also held that the waivers and quitclaims executed by the petitioners are valid, after observing that the Release, Waiver and Quitclaims were notarized by the petitioners' very own counsel. The attendant circumstances of the execution of the waivers leave the petitioners in no position to question the execution and authenticity of their documented actions.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition outright for obvious lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 1st day of February, 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, and concurred in by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta and Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda.
[2] Only six (6) out the seventeen (17) petitioners signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, and only five among those who signed indicated their respective community tax certificate numbers, contrary to Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
[3] Decided by Presiding Commissioner Violeta Ortiz-Buntug, and concurred in by Commissioner Oscar S. Uy and Commissioner Auielio D. Menzon.
[4] Labor Arbiter Jose B. Lagado.
[5] El Reyno Homes, Inc. v. Ong, 445 Phil. 612 (2003).
[6] Casim v. Flordeliza, 425 Phil. 210 (2002).
