Coca Cola Bottlers v. Cabalo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Rodolfo Cabalo, Juanito Gerona, Luis Gerona, Luis de Ocampo, and Mario Nilo Mecua filed an illegal dismissal case against petitioners Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. and its officers. Respondents claimed to have been employed for 10 to 13 years as route helpers, cargadors, or pahinantes, working exclusively within the company premises under the company's supervision and control. Petitioners contended that respondents were engaged on a temporary basis for a limited period of five months to augment the workforce due to fluctuating market conditions and that their services automatically terminated upon the expiration of the agreed period. Petitioners asserted that respondents failed to present documentary evidence to support their alleged service periods and employer-employee relationship. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for failure of the complainants to establish an employer-employee relationship by clear and convincing competent evidence. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) found a dearth of evidence on both sides and remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings to thresh out the issue of employer-employee relationship, also ordering efforts to serve summons on co-respondent Lipercon Services, Inc. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it for failure to comply with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and for failure to attach a certified true copy of the assailed NLRC Resolution dated December 29, 1999. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, questioning the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. They argued that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing their petition despite their requests for certified true copies and that the Court of Appeals departed from usual judicial proceedings by not liberally construing the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for failure to attach a certified true copy of the NLRC Resolution dated December 29, 1999. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for failure to provide a written explanation for non-personal service of the petition on the Office of the Solicitor General and respondents' counsel.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated April 25, 2000, and July 12, 2000, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the certified true copy: The Court held that there is no substantial distinction between a photocopy or a 'Xerox copy' and a 'true copy' for as long as the photocopy is certified by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or his duly-authorized representative and that the same is a faithful reproduction of the original. The purpose of the requirement is to assure that the copy is a faithful reproduction of the original document. In this case, while the NLRC Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration was a mere photocopy of the duplicate original sent to petitioners' counsel, the Court of Appeals' dismissal was based on this specific deficiency. The Court noted that the NLRC Decision itself was a certified photocopy, which was acceptable. However, the deficiency in the copy of the Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration was a valid ground for dismissal under the Rules of Court. On the issue of non-personal service: The Court reiterated that the requirement for personal service under Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court is mandatory, and resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why personal service was not done. The Court's discretion to consider a pleading as not filed for violation of this rule must be exercised properly, considering the practicability of personal service, the importance of the subject matter, and the prima facie merit of the pleading. In this case, personal service on the Office of the Solicitor General and respondents' counsel was practicable, given the proximity of the law firm's office to the OSG and the counsel's office, and the ample time petitioners had to effect personal service. The issue before the Court of Appeals, which was whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in remanding the case, was not of such paramount importance as to justify relaxation of the rules due to inadvertence. The Court emphasized that inadvertence does not constitute excusable negligence, especially when the rule had been in effect for three years prior to the filing of the petition.
Main Doctrine
A 'certified Xerox copy' is considered a 'certified true copy' for purposes of certiorari petitions, provided it is certified by the proper officer and is a faithful reproduction of the original. Failure to provide a written explanation for non-personal service of pleadings, as required by Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, can be a valid ground for dismissal, especially when personal service is practicable and the issue is not of paramount importance.