ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 144537.May 27, 2002]
METRO DATA COMPUTER COLLEGE vs. CA, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 27 MAY 2002.
G.R. No. 144537 (Metro Data Computer College, Emmanuel M. Ibay, President, and/or Elsa Ibay, Vice-President, both of Metro Data Computer College vs. Court of Appeals, National Labor Relations Commission, Labor Arbiter Eduardo Carpio and Corazon Balite.)
Private respondent Corazon Balite filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of premium pay for holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay against petitioners Metro Data Computer College, its President - Emmanuel M. Ibay, and its Vice-President - Elsa Ibay. On October 27, 1998, Labor Arbiter Eduardo J. Carpio rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring as illegal the termination of complainant and ordering respondents to pay complainant as follows:
1)�������� P71,470.00 backwages from 12/10/97 - 10/31/98.
����������� 2)�������� P10,500.00 summer vacation leave pay.
����������� 3)�������� P35,000.00 separation pay.
All other issues are dismissed.
SO ORDERED. [1] cralaw
Petitioners appealed the said decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On March 16 2000, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for their failure to perfect the same within the 10-day reglementary period, that is, they failed to post the required appeal bond within the mandated 10-day period. [2] cralaw A motion for reconsideration of the same was denied for lack of merit.
Consequently, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). On June 5, 2000, the appellate court dismissed the petition citing the following reasons:
1.�������� Perusing the certification against forum shopping, which accompanied the petition, it appears that it was executed and signed by only one of the petitioners, i.e., by one ELSA IBAY, Vice-President of petitioner Metro Data Computer College, without any showing that she was authorized therefor by the College and the other petitioner, Emmanuel M. Ibay, President. The duty to certify under oath is strictly addressed to all the petitioners. To allow only one of them to execute the required certification would render Revised Circular No. 28-91 (Sec. 5 , Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) inutile in avoiding the practice of non-forum shopping because the other petitioner, who did not execute and sign the same, would not be bound by the certification executed by Ms. Elsa Ibay. He may just obtain the services of a different lawyer to institute practically the same case in a different fora.
2.�������� Failure to serve a copy of the petition on the respondent National Labor Relations Commission (Sec. 2(c), Rule 56 and Sec. 3, par. 2, Rule 46 in relation to Sec. 2, par. 1, Rule 56, Rules of Civil Procedure. [3] cralaw
A reconsideration of the said resolution was denied on August 15, 2000. [4] cralaw
On September 7, 2000, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before this Court. The petition was not accompanied with an explanation why service was not done personally.
The instant petition for certiorari must be dismissed as petitioners evidently chose the wrong mode of appeal. Petitioners should have filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 thereof. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 45 provide that a party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari within 15 days from notice of Such judgment or final order or resolution.
Even if the Court were to treat said petition as having been filed under Rule 45, the same would also fail. Records bear out that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in dismissing the petition before it on the grounds cited above. Technical rules of procedure are formulated to effect smooth and systematic proceedings before the courts, tribunals and other agencies. Circular No. 28-91 was specifically designed to serve as an instrument to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice. Besides, a review 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. [5] cralaw Here, there apparently exist no special and important reasons why the Court should depart from this time-honored rule.
At any rate, even if the Court of Appeals had brushed aside the technical defects of the petition before it, the same would have been futile. The petition would have been ultimately dismissed because the decision of the NLRC had been rendered final and executory by the petitioners' failure to perfect their appeal within the 10-day reglementary period when they failed to post the required appeal bond within the said mandatory period.
ACCORDINGLY , the petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
The Court further Resolves to NOTE the private respondent's:
(a)letter-request for an extension of sixty (60) days within which to look for a new counsel; and
(b) letter-request to expedite/prioritize this case.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, p. 44.
[2] cralaw Id., at 28-30.
[3] cralaw Id., at 65-66.
[4] cralaw Id., at 84.
[5] cralaw Caoili v. Court of Appeals, 314 SCRA 345 (1999).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
