[G.R. No. 140093. June 25, 2001]
CUL TRANSPORT et al. vs. LOMOCSO
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a
resolution of this Court dated JUN 25 2001.
G.R. No. 140093(CUL Transport/Carolina Lam vs. Hon.
Court of Appeals, National Labor Relations Commission (Third Division) and
Elezerto G. Lomocso.)
Before this Court is a Petition
for Review seeking to- set aside the Resolution dated June 10, 1999 which
dismissed the petition for certiorari and the Resolution dated September 14,
1999 which denied the motion for reconsideration, both issued by the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 52919.
The antecedents are as follows:.
Sometime in December 1993, private respondent Elezerto Lomocso was employed by
petitioner CUL Transport as driver on commission basis of its provincial buses
plying the route from Sorsogon to Cubao and vice versa. On December 8, 1995,
petitioner company sent a notice of suspension and termination of services to
respondent. On January 4, 1996, private respondent filed a complaint for Unfair
Labor Practice, illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, and underpayment of
salaries against petitioners. The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment on August 6,
1998 ordering the reinstatement of private respondent to his former position as
driver without loss of seniority rights and to pay him his unpaid salaries,
backwages and attorney's fees in the total amount of P240,152.00. On appeal,
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision of the
Labor Arbiter in its Resolution dated February 26, 1999.
Petitioners' Motion for
Reconsideration was denied for lack of merit. Thereafter, petitioners filed a
petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. Said petition was dismissed
outright in the Resolution dated June 10, 1999 for being insufficient in
substance as petitioners "failed to accompany it with certified true
copies of such material portions of the record as would support the allegations
in the petition as required under Sec. 1, Rule 65 in relation to Sec. 3, Rule
45 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure." The motion for reconsideration
was likewise denied in the Resolution dated September 14, 1999. The Court of
Appeals ruled that subsequent compliance with the requirement shall not warrant
any reconsideration since the non-compliance was attributable to petitioners
who claimed that they were of the mistaken belief that only decisions and/or
resolutions of the respondent NLRC need to be attached to the petition.
Hence, the present petition.
Petitioners acknowledge their error in not appending the pertinent documents in
the petition but claim that this was due to the honest belief that their
petition raises mainly questions of law and hence only the decisions and/or
resolutions which are contrary to law and jurisprudence are needed to be
attached to the petition. Realizing the error, they allegedly filed a motion
for reconsideration submitting a supplemental petition and attaching all the
"certified true copies of material documents" pertinent thereto.
Petitioners now plead for a liberal construction of the rules especially in
labor cases. The other issues raised by petitioners pertain to the merits of
the case which were not touched upon by the court below in view of the
dismissal of the petition on a technical ground.
In his Comment, private
respondent avers that the right to appeal or file a petition is not a statutory
right and one who seeks to avail of this right must strictly comply with the
law and the rules.
The instant petition assails the
Resolution dated September 14, 1999 of the Court of Appeals which dismissed
their petition for certiorari for failure to file the petition with
"certified true copies of such material portions of the record as would support
the allegations in the petition". Suffice it to state that this matter was
settled in the case of Cadayona vs. Court of Appeals 1 324
SCRA 619 (En Banc). wherein this Court ruled that the requirement to
file a certified true copy refers to the copy of the questioned judgment, final
order or resolution,, and that it is sufficient that "copies of all other
relevant documents" accompany the petition. On this point, the Court of
However, we find no reversible
error in the court's denial of the petition below. Petitioners merely attached
to the petition certified true copies of the assailed decision/resolution and
admittedly failed to accompany it with other relevant documents or material
portions of the record as would support the petition. These documents were
attached only when they filed their motion for reconsideration. Section 1, Rule
65 is explicit that the petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy
of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof and "copies of all
pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto". And pursuant to
Section 3, Rule 46, the failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the
requirements "shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the
WHEREFORE, the petition
for review is hereby DENIED.
Very truly yours,
JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
Asst. Clerk of Court