NYK International Knitwear Corporation Philippines v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Virginia Publico was employed by NYK International Knitwear Corporation Philippines as a sewer on a piece-rate basis, with required work hours from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 midnight, averaging P185.00 daily. On May 7, 1997, Publico requested to leave early due to illness, but was denied. She left anyway and notified management the next day of her continued recovery. Upon attempting to return to work on May 9, 1997, she was initially barred by security. She was eventually allowed in after stating she would complete unfinished work. On May 10, 1997, she was informed by management that she was dismissed for refusing to render overtime service. Publico filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against NYK and its manager, Cathy Ng. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Publico, finding her dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with full backwages and attorney's fees. This decision was affirmed in its entirety by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Petitioners NYK and Cathy Ng then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, assailing the NLRC's resolution. The Court of Appeals dismissed their petition for certiorari due to non-compliance with Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically the failure to attach a certified true copy of the NLRC decision and other pertinent pleadings. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioners, attaching additional documents and explaining the circumstances of the copy provided. The Court of Appeals denied this motion. The Petition: Petitioners NYK International Knitwear Corporation Philippines and Cathy Ng are seeking review of the Court of Appeals' resolutions that dismissed their petition for certiorari and denied their motion for reconsideration. They argue that the Court of Appeals should have given due course to their petition, contending substantial compliance with procedural rules and that the dismissal was based on technicalities. They also question the NLRC's findings of illegal dismissal and the award of backwages and reinstatement, asserting that Publico's refusal to render overtime constituted abandonment. The core issues presented are whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the certiorari petition on technical grounds and whether the NLRC's findings of illegal dismissal were legally warranted.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in dismissing the petition for certiorari on purely technical grounds. Whether there exists evidence on record to warrant the ruling that the complainant was illegally dismissed, and corollary thereto, whether there is legal justification to award backwages and order reinstatement. Whether there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) so as to justify a reversal of its resolutions, and the liability of the corporate officers.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated September 15, 2000 and December 5, 2000 are affirmed. Costs against petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the petition for certiorari on technical grounds: The Court held that the Court of Appeals did not commit a reversible error in dismissing the petition for certiorari. Section 1 of Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires the petition to be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment or order subject thereof, along with copies of all relevant pleadings and documents. Administrative Circular No. 3-96 clarifies that a "certified true copy" must be an authenticated original, not a mere xerox copy. The disputed document, though stamped "certified true copy," was only a xerox copy, thus contravening the rules. Paragraph 5 of Administrative Circular No. 3-96 explicitly states that failure to comply shall result in the rejection of annexes and dismissal of the case, and subsequent compliance will not warrant reconsideration unless the non-compliance was not attributable to the party despite due diligence and there are highly justifiable and compelling reasons. The petitioners failed to show any compelling reason to relax the rule, as a writ of certiorari is a prerogative writ, not demandable as a matter of right. On the correctness of the NLRC's findings of illegal dismissal: The Court ruled that it could not err in refusing to rule on the correctness of the NLRC's findings because petitioners raised factual questions improper in a petition for review on certiorari. The findings of fact of the NLRC, especially when affirmed by the Labor Arbiter, are deemed binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court. The petitioners' bare allegations of abandonment were insufficient to overturn the consistent conclusion of both quasi-judicial agencies that private respondent was unlawfully dismissed. The Court found no reason to deviate from the findings that there was no basis to conclude that Virginia Publico abandoned her work. Factual findings of the NLRC, when supported by evidence, are accorded respect and finality. On the NLRC's discretion and the liability of the corporate officers: The Court affirmed the joint and several liability of the corporate officers. Citing A.C. Ransom Labor Union-CCLU v. NLRC, the Court reiterated that a corporation, being an artificial person, acts through its officers. The manager, Cathy Ng, falls within the definition of an "employer" under the Labor Code, who may be held jointly and severally liable for the obligations of the corporation to its dismissed employees. Therefore, Cathy Ng, in her capacity as manager and responsible officer of NYK, cannot be exonerated from her joint and several liability in the payment of the monetary award to the private respondent.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari must strictly comply with the requirements of Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, including the attachment of a certified true copy of the assailed decision and pertinent pleadings. Failure to comply, without compelling reason, warrants dismissal. Factual findings of the NLRC, when affirmed by the Labor Arbiter, are binding on the Supreme Court.