ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 143424.
AMEN-AMEN vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a
resolution of this Court dated
G.R. No. 143424(Danilo Amen-Amen, petitioner vs. Court of Appeals, National Labor Relations Commission (Fifth Division) Toyota Davao City, Inc./Duratrak Corp., et al., respondents.)
Before this Court is a Petition
for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking reversal
of the
"For non-compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition is considered as NOT FILED and is, accordingly, DISMISSED."
Likewise assailed is the
appellate court's
On May 22, 1998, Danilo
Amen-Amen (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) filed a complaint for illegal
suspension and dismissal, separation pay, 13th month pay,
performance incentive pay and sick leave pay against Toyota Davao City,
Inc./Duratrak Corp. and/or Jose A. Lim, III, President (hereinafter referred to
as respondents) before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Regional
Arbitration Branch No. XI in Davao City.
After the usual conciliation proceedings and submission of position papers,
Labor Arbiter Miriam A. Libron-Barroso rendered a decision dated
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
a) Declaring the dismissal and suspension of complainant illegal;
b) Directing respondents Toyota Davao City, Inc./Duratrak Corp. and/or Jose A. Lim III, Pres. to jointly and severally pay complainant the total amount of Four Hundred Forty Three Thousand Eighty Seven pesos and 83/100 (P443,087.83) representing 1998 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, separation pay and backwages;
c) Ordering the above-named respondents to jointly and severally pay complainant his performance incentive and sick leave benefits to be determined during the execution stage; and
d) Dismissing the claim for damages for lack of merit."
Respondents seasonably appealed
the decision to the NLRC's Fifth Division in Cagayan de Oro City. Subsequently,
the NLRC reversed the appealed decision, ruling that petitioner's dismissal
from employment was for a just cause and with due process of law in a
Resolution dated
"WHEREFORE, the appeal is Granted and the appealed decision is Vacated and Set Aside, except the portion thereof awarding month pay and service incentive leave pay to complainant which is affirmed. In lieu thereof, a new judgment is rendered dismissing the instant case for lack of merit, subject to the qualification heretofore explained."
Petitioner's motion to
reconsider the above Resolution was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution dated
Consequently, petitioner
elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The petition was filed on
Hence, this petition.
To our mind, the sole issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of lack of explanation of service by registered mail.
The answer is in the negative.
It is not disputed that petitioner's Petition for Certiorari filed in the Court of Appeals did not contain an explanation why resort was made to other modes of service of the petition to the parties concerned. In the exercise of its discretion granted under Section 11 of Rule 13, which we quote:
"Sec. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. - Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed."
The Court of Appeals considered the same as not having been filed and dismissed the petition outright. Pursuant to the above-quoted section, service and filing of pleadings and other papers must, whenever practicable, be done personally. To underscore the mandatory nature of this rule requiring personal service whenever practicable, said section gives the court the discretion to consider a pleading or paper as not filed if the other modes of service or filing were resorted to and no written explanation was made as to why personal service was not done in the first place." 6 Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. vs. Ricafort, 293 SCRA 661 (1998). Evidently, personal service and filing are preferred to expedite action or resolution on a pleading and minimize, if not eliminate, delays likely to be incurred if service or filing is done by mail, considering the unreliability of the postal service.
Petitioner claims that his failure to indicate an explanation was due to honest mistake and/or oversight; and that labor cases should be spared from strict compliance with technical rules of procedure. We are not persuaded.
This Court in the case of Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. vs. Ricafort 7 Supra. , noting that it has been several months since the 1997. Rules of Civil Procedure took effect, where in the interim, the Court has generally accommodated parties and counsel who failed to comply with the requirement of a written explanation, contained the following directive:
"x x x, for the guidance of the Bench and Bar, strictest compliance with Section 11 of Rule 13 is mandated one month from promulgation of this decision." 8 See p. 670.
The petition for certiorari without the written explanation was filed on February 4, 2000, that is, three (3) years after the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure took effect on July 1, 1997; and two (2) years after the promulgation of the Solar case in 1998. Clearly, there is no excuse for its non-compliance, especially, not on mere reliance on the liberal construction of rules. We adhere to the pronouncement in the Solar case that, "if motions to expunge or strike out pleadings for violation of Section 11 of Rule 13 were to be indiscriminately resolved under Section 6 of Rule 1 9 Section 6, Rule 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Construction. - These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. " or as in this case, under the general "protection to labor clauses in the Constitution, "then Section 11 would become meaningless and its sound purpose negated. 10 See p. 669.
WHEREFORE, the
resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
