United Paragon Mining Corporation v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Cesario F. Ermita, a foreman at United Paragon Mining Corporation (UPMC), was terminated on January 16, 1996. The company cited his alleged violation of company rules, specifically for inflicting bodily injuries on a co-employee, Jerry Romero, and for unlawfully possessing a bolo, a deadly weapon. Following his termination, the dispute was brought to the grievance machinery as per the Collective Bargaining Agreement. When no settlement was reached, the parties agreed to submit the case to voluntary arbitration. Procedural History: The dispute was referred to Voluntary Arbitrator Atty. Murly P. Mendez, who, on February 28, 1997, ruled in favor of Cesario Ermita, ordering UPMC to reinstate him without loss of seniority or interruption of service, and to pay back wages and benefits. UPMC sought reconsideration, offering separation pay instead, citing that Cesario's position had been filled and that strained relations existed. The Voluntary Arbitrator denied this motion on April 22, 1997, maintaining that the termination was based on a misapprehension of facts and thus reinstatement was justified. UPMC then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 44450, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Voluntary Arbitrator. The Petition: The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated July 24, 2001, dismissed UPMC's petition for certiorari on three grounds: (1) certiorari was not the proper remedy to review labor arbiter decisions; (2) the petition's verification was insufficient as it was signed by the Personnel Superintendent without proof of authorization; and (3) the grounds raised by UPMC involved factual appreciation, which is not proper in a certiorari petition. UPMC's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on November 7, 2001. UPMC now seeks review by this Court via a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, questioning the CA's dismissal based on the procedural grounds.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the grounds raised by UPMC (grave abuse of discretion, erroneous interpretation of law, denial of substantial justice), which the CA found to be essentially factual issues. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding the verification ineffective and insufficient due to lack of showing of authority of the Personnel Superintendent, Feliciano M. Daniel, to sign on behalf of UPMC. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition despite the possibility of relaxing procedural rules in the interest of justice, considering UPMC's arguments regarding Daniel's authority and the nature of the issues raised.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy and the grounds raised: The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari. The CA's finding that the grounds raised by UPMC were essentially factual issues that could not be entertained in a petition for certiorari was correct. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and it cannot be used to re-examine or re-evaluate evidence or factual findings made by a lower tribunal. On the insufficiency of verification and authority: The Court of Appeals correctly found the verification to be ineffective and insufficient. A corporation can only act through its authorized officers or representatives. There was no showing that Daniel was authorized by the corporation's board of directors to file the petition for certiorari. The fact that Daniel was impleaded as a nominal respondent did not grant him the authority to file a certiorari petition on behalf of the corporation. In the absence of a board resolution, no person, not even corporate officers, can validly bind the corporation. On the overall dismissal of the petition: Given the lack of proper authority for the signatory and the improper use of the remedy of certiorari for factual review, the dismissal by the CA was justified. The petitioner failed to provide adequate justification for its non-compliance, instead persisting in its erroneous thesis that Daniel's authority was unnecessary. Therefore, the petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court lacked merit.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari filed by a corporation must be signed by a duly authorized officer, evidenced by a board resolution, as a natural person cannot act on behalf of the corporation without such authority. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the petition fatally defective.