ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 143396. August 8, 2001]

G & M (PHIL.), INC. vs. ANOTONIO RIO

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 8 2001.

G.R. No. 143396(G & M (Phil.), INC. vs. Antonio Rio.)

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Resolutions dated February 15, 2000 and May 24, 2000 both issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 57129.

A complaint for illegal dismissal and salary differentials was filed by respondent Antonio Rio against petitioner G & M (Phil.), Inc. before the POEA which was decided on October 3, 1994 in favor of respondent. Said decision was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in a Resolution dated May 19, 1997. Before the said decision could be implemented, the case records on file with the NLRC were lost. Thus, on March 22, 1999, respondent filed a Motion to Reconstruct Records of the case attaching thereto copies of the documents and pleadings sought to be reconstituted. Petitioner was asked to comment. In view of the repeated failure of petitioner to submit its comment thereon, the NLRC issued an Order dated September 28, 1999 granting respondent's motion and declaring the documents composed of 228 pages submitted by private respondent as the reconstituted records of the case. NLRC further ordered the reconstituted records forwarded to the NCR-Arbitration Branch for implementation. Petitioner moved to reconsider the said order, but the motion was denied by NLRC in its Resolution dated January 12, 2000. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. In its Resolution dated February 15, 2000, the Court of Appeals denied the petition for failure to attach copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto that would support the allegations of the petition in violation of Section 1, Rule 65. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied for lack of merit in the Resolution dated May 24, 2000.

Hence, the present petition on the sole ground that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioner violated Section 1 (par. 2) of Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and in denying due course to the petition.

The case before the NLRC involved simply the reconstruction/reconstitution of the records of the case which got lost even before the decision thereon could be implemented/executed. Petitioner questioned the action of the NLRC in considering outright the records submitted by private respondent as reconstructed due to petitioner's failure to submit its own copy within the required period and allegedly even without determining the genuineness of the signatures appearing therein. Petitioner is of the view that the only documents relevant to the petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals are the Order and Resolution of the NLRC which declared as reconstructed the records submitted by the private respondent.

Private respondent filed his Comment which merely quoted the assailed NLRC-Resolution and other pleadings without further arguments and simply prayed for the denial of the petition. Public respondent NLRC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, submitted its Comment alleging that the documents/orders/resolutions that were attached to the petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals are not certified true copies and the failure to comply with this requirement is sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

In its Reply, petitioner reiterates that the documents, orders and resolutions attached to the petition before the Court of Appeals were duplicate original copies.

The petition is without merit.

Petitioner admits that only the assailed order and resolution of the NLRC were attached .to the petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals. Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 65, the petition should be accompanied not only by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, but also copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto.

In the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the CA-Resolution denying its petition, petitioner's reason for failing to attach pertinent documents to the petition for certiorari was due to the fact that it "could not possibly retrieve(d) its copies of the subject records from its former counsel. (par. 4, thereof, p. 32, Rollo). The mere attachment of the assailed NLRC-Resolutions is insufficient as a basis in determining whether or not the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in declaring the documents submitted by respondent as reconstructed/reconstituted. Petitioner had the burden to show why the said documents submitted by respondent should not be considered as part of the records of the case.

The instant petition itself failed to state the reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of the petition. The matters raised therein are mere reiteration of the grounds alleged in the motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor (Section 6, thereof). Petitioner failed in this respect. Otherwise, the petition is merely dilatory.

WHEREFORE, there being no reversible error in the resolutions assailed from, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE