Pet Plans v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner PET PLANS, Incorporated, a company selling educational, pension, and memorial plans, employed Jaime M. Abad as its Sales Operations Manager/District Manager. In June 1999, PET PLANS reassigned Abad to a lower-ranking position, citing his failure to meet sales quotas, recruit manpower, and develop his agency. Consequently, Abad filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for illegal dismissal/demotion, damages, and unpaid wages and benefits against PET PLANS and its President, Adrian V. Ocampo. Procedural History: The Executive Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Abad, declaring him illegally dismissed and ordering PET PLANS and Ocampo to reinstate him with backwages and other benefits, or pay separation pay if reinstatement was not feasible. PET PLANS appealed this decision to the NLRC, which modified the ruling by setting aside the award of backwages but affirming all other aspects. A subsequent motion for reconsideration by PET PLANS was denied. Aggrieved, PET PLANS and Ocampo filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Petition: Petitioners PET PLANS, Inc. and Adrian V. Ocampo seek review of the Court of Appeals' resolutions dismissing their special civil action for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 62410) and denying their motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition due to a defective certification against forum-shopping, as it was signed by Rolando Espino without sufficient proof of his authority to represent both petitioners. Petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals erred in not considering the submitted certifications as substantial compliance and that the dismissal was an abuse of discretion. They are seeking nullification of the Court of Appeals' resolutions.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of defective certification against forum shopping, considering the failure of Adrian V. Ocampo to sign the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping. Whether the failure of Adrian V. Ocampo, a natural person and co-petitioner, to sign the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping is a fatal defect, and whether the petitioners demonstrated justifiable cause for the failure to personally sign and proved that outright dismissal would seriously impair the administration of justice.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It held that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari. The Court found that the petitioners failed to comply with the requirements of the Rules of Court regarding the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping, particularly the failure of Adrian V. Ocampo, a natural person and co-petitioner, to sign the said documents without justifiable cause.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the dismissal by the Court of Appeals and the failure of Adrian V. Ocampo to sign the certificate: The Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 requires a verified petition accompanied by a sworn certification of non-forum shopping, and failure to comply is a sufficient ground for dismissal. While a subsequent motion for reconsideration attached a Board Resolution authorizing Espino to represent PET PLANS, this resolution did not extend to Adrian V. Ocampo, who was a petitioner in his own right. For natural persons, the Rule requires the parties themselves to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping. The Court found that Espino could not definitively attest to Ocampo's compliance. The Court also noted that the petitioners failed to show justifiable cause for Ocampo's failure to sign or that the dismissal would impair the administration of justice, conditions necessary for relaxing the rule. On the failure of Adrian V. Ocampo to sign the certificate and the requirements for relaxation of the rule: The Court clarified that while corporations can authorize representatives to sign on their behalf, natural persons must sign the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping themselves. Adrian V. Ocampo, having been made jointly and solidarily liable by the Labor Arbiter, became a real party-in-interest. Therefore, his personal signature was necessary. The Court cited Loquias vs. Office of the Ombudsman and subsequent cases, stating that while the rule on signing the certificate can be relaxed, it requires justifiable cause for the failure to personally sign and proof that outright dismissal would seriously impair the administration of justice. The petitioners failed to meet these conditions. The Court also pointed out that in the present petition before the Supreme Court, both PET PLANS and Ocampo again failed to comply with the requirements, which the Court deemed fatal to their cause.
Main Doctrine
Failure of a natural person petitioner to sign the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping, without justifiable cause and proof that the dismissal would impair the administration of justice, is a fatal defect warranting dismissal of the petition. A corporate officer signing on behalf of a natural person co-petitioner without proper authorization is likewise insufficient.