Philippine Valve Mfg. Company v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Teresita N. An filed an illegal dismissal case against Philippine Valve Manufacturing Company (PVMC) and Engr. Rene B. Galera. The labor arbiter, while finding PVMC not guilty of illegal dismissal, directed the company to pay Ms. An severance pay equivalent to one-half month's pay for every year of service, totaling P37,746.00, based on social justice and humanitarian considerations, given her ten years of service. The labor arbiter dismissed other money claims and charges against both PVMC and Engr. Galera. Procedural History: Petitioners PVMC and Galera appealed the labor arbiter's decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which affirmed the decision in its entirety and denied their subsequent motion for reconsideration. Undeterred, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed this petition, citing a defective certification of non-forum shopping signed only by Engr. Galera without proof of authorization from PVMC. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' resolution via a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They argue that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing their petition for certiorari, contending that the certification of non-forum shopping was validly signed by one of the petitioners, Engr. Galera, who was acting in his capacity as a principal party and not merely as Vice-President. They also assert that a subsequent affidavit from a partner of PVMC, Marlyn Chiu, attesting to Galera's authority, should have been considered, and that strict adherence to the rules would defeat the administration of justice.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of defective certification of non-forum shopping. Whether PVMC, as a general partnership, is exempt from the requirement of a proper certification of non-forum shopping. Whether the affidavit of a partner attesting to the authority of another partner to file a petition constitutes substantial compliance.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The resolutions of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the defective certification of non-forum shopping: The Court reiterated that Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court requires the plaintiff or principal party to certify under oath that they have not commenced any action involving the same issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency. The Court emphasized that this requirement applies to any juridical entity, which must have a proper officer to represent it. In this case, the certification was signed only by Engr. Galera, and there was no showing that he was authorized by his co-petitioner, PVMC, to represent it and sign the certification. The Court clarified that the attestation in a certification on non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executed it, and it cannot be presumed that Galera knew the status of PVMC's other pending actions or claims. Therefore, the petition filed before the Court of Appeals was defective due to the non-compliance with the rules on certification against forum shopping. On PVMC as a general partnership: The Court rejected the petitioners' claim that PVMC is a general partnership and thus not subject to the ruling in Premium Marble Resources v. Court of Appeals. The Court stated that the requirement of a certification of non-forum shopping applies to any juridical entity, which necessarily has a proper officer to represent it. The Court cited Digital Microwave Corporation v. Court of Appeals to support the principle that where there are two or more petitioners, a petition signed by only one of them is defective unless authorized by the co-parties. The Court found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that PVMC was not a juridical entity requiring such representation or that the rules on certification did not apply. On substantial compliance: The Court held that substantial compliance is not sufficient in matters requiring strict observance of the law, citing Spouses Valentin Ortiz and Camilla Milan Ortiz v. Court of Appeals, et al.. The Court noted that the petitioners attached an affidavit from a partner, Marlyn Chiu, to their motion for reconsideration before the CA, attesting to Galera's authority. However, the Court found that the petitioners did not show any compelling reason to disregard strict compliance with the rules, nor did they demonstrate reasonable cause for their failure to personally sign the certification or to have it properly executed. The Court concluded that the outright dismissal of the petition would not defeat the administration of justice in this instance, as the procedural defect was significant.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals must comply with the requirement of a certification of non-forum shopping signed by the principal party or a duly authorized representative. Failure to comply, without a showing of reasonable cause, is not curable by mere amendment and warrants dismissal.