Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > February 2011 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 194527 : February 21, 2011] JAGUAR SECURITY & INVESTIGATION AGENCY V. MARGIE ROSALES, RICKY GUANZON AND ESPERANZA JANEO :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 21 February 2011 which reads as follows: 

G.R. No. 194527 (Jaguar Security & Investigation Agency v. Margie Rosales, Ricky Guanzon and Esperanza Janeo).

This case raises the question of whether the Court of Appeals ought to dismiss a petition for certiorari filed with it if court processes cannot be served on the respondents who have moved from their address of record without giving notice of their new address.

The Facts and the Case 

On July 10, 2002 Rey Legista (Legista) fifed a complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) against petitioner Jaguar Security & Investigation Agency (JSIA) for underpayment of wages, nonpayment of overtime pay, and other wage-related benefits. After investigation, the DOLE Regional Director awarded monetary judgments to Legista and his 11 co-employees, including respondents Margie Rosales (Rosales), Ricky Guanzon (Guanzon), and Esperanza Janeo (Janeo). JSIA filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision but. before it could be resolved, JSIA and some of its employees, including Legista, settled their disputes and the latter executed quitclaims. Only three of the original complainants, the present respondents, remained. Eventually, the DOLE Regional Director denied the motion for reconsideration. JSIA appealed to the DOLE Secretary who partially granted the appeal and reduced the awards to the remaining respondents. This prompted JSIA to file with the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition for certiorari.

  Initially, the CA dismissed the petition for failure of JSIA's counsel to indicate details of his right to practice. After compliance, the CA reinstated the petition with an order for JSIA to provide the court with the current addresses of respondents because copies of court processes sent to them were returned. In response, JSIA indicated that respondents may be served with such processes at Legista's address, which address the original complainants used when they filed the case. But since Legista already dropped his complaint, he could no longer be treated as a party to the action the JSIA filed with the CA.

JSIA filed a manifestation that per employment record of Janeo, her last known address was 246 Blk. 8, West Rembo, Fort Bonifacio. JSIA could no longer locate the records of Rosales and Guanzon. Still it insisted that the address it provided in its petition may be used by the CA because this was the address that respondents stated when they filed their complaint before the DOLE.

Given the situation, the CA dismissed the petition for failure to acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents. JSIA filed a motion for reconsideration. Citing Spouses Rabanal v. Atty. Tugade,^[1]  JSIA insisted that "service of notice and other pleadings x x x must be made at the last address on record." Further, the respondents' duty is to inform the court of changes in their addresses. Their failure to do so should be deemed a waiver of their right to file a comment. But the CA denied the motion for reconsideration on November 19, 2010, hence, this appeal.

The Issue 

The issue for resolution is whether or not the CA correctly dismissed JSIA's petition on the ground of failure to acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents who could no longer be found at their last given address.

The Court's Ruling 

The 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA) provides that original actions filed before it,^[2] among which is a petition for certiorari,^[3] are to be processed in accordance with the applicable provisions in the Rules of Court. Those provisions are found in Rule 46. These rules mention two ways by which the CA could acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent: 1) by service on him of the CA's order or resolution that indicates the court's initial action on the petition or 2) by respondent's voluntary submission to the CA's jurisdiction.

Here, the CA has been unable to serve on respondents any of its orders or resolutions because these have been returned to the court with a note that respondents could not be found at the address given by petitioner. Nor have respondents voluntarily appeared before the CA by filing some pleading or paper.

  The CA's dismissal of the petition on ground of its failure to acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents would be quite unfair. It would amount to an affirmation of the DOLE Secretary's decision without hearing JSIA's timely appeal from that decision. And it is not JSIA's fault that the CA has not succeeded in serving copies of its orders or resolutions on the respondents. The latter moved out of their last known address without placing their new address or addresses on record. Under the circumstances, it was within the power of the CA to declare those orders or resolutions deem served and to proceed to adjudicate JSIA's petition based on the DOLE pleadings, documents, decisions, and orders that form part of the record.

WHEREFORE,  the Court GRANTS the petition, REMANDS the case to the Court of Appeals, and DIRECTS it to 1) serve copies of its orders or resolutions upon respondent Esperanza Janeo at the employee's address that she gave JSIA; 2) if this fails, to declare such orders or resolutions deemed served on all the respondents; and 3) to proceed to adjudicate the petition as stated above.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
  Asst. Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] 432 Phil.. 1064, 1071 (2002).

^[2] Rule IV, Sec. 5. Processing of Petitions for Review and Original Actions, x x x (c) Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus and Quo Warranto. - The provisions of Rule 46, as far as applicable, Rule 65 and 66 of the Rules of Court shall govern petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus and petitions for quo warranto, respectively.

Internet citation: http://ca.judiciary.gov.ph/images/references_corner/2009irca.pdf.

^[3] RULES OF COURT, Rule 46, Sec. 2. To what actions applicable. This Rule shall apply to original actions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and quo warranto.