Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Raut
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondents Rizalina Raut, Leila Emnace, and Gina Capistrano filed separate complaints against Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) for illegal dismissal and non-payment of various monetary claims. They alleged they were illegally dismissed from their positions as telephone operators. The cases were consolidated, and the Labor Arbiter found that the respondents were regular employees of PLDT, not of an independent contractor, Peerless Integrated Services, Inc. The Labor Arbiter ordered their reinstatement with backwages and other benefits. 2. Procedural History: The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision with modifications, ordering PLDT to also pay overtime pay, night shift differential pay, service incentive leave pay, and 13th month pay. After the NLRC denied PLDT's motion for reconsideration, PLDT filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the NLRC's decision with a modification regarding the computation of 13th month pay, and this decision became final and executory. Subsequently, the Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution for the monetary awards. PLDT appealed this order to the NLRC, which dismissed the appeal for failure to attach a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. PLDT's subsequent petition for certiorari with the CA was also denied. 3. The Petition: This case is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision that affirmed the NLRC's dismissal of PLDT's appeal. PLDT argues that the dismissal was improper, contending that the only jurisdictional requirements for appeal are the perfection within the reglementary period and the posting of a bond. The core issue is whether the CA erred in affirming the NLRC's dismissal of PLDT's appeal due to the absence of a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping, which is a mandatory requirement under the NLRC Rules of Procedure.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC's dismissal of petitioner's appeal for failure to attach a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. Whether the omission of the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping in the Appeal Memorandum warrants the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal from the Order dated June 21, 2002 of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC; and whether the Order dated June 21, 2002, of Labor Arbiter Ernesto F. Carreon directing the issuance of a writ of execution is null and void due to an alleged increase in the judgment award. Whether the respondents should be reinstated as regular employees of PLDT.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the appeal for failure to attach a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping: The Court reiterated that appeal is a statutory privilege that requires strict compliance with prescribed rules. Petitioner's contention that only the perfection of appeal within the reglementary period and the posting of a bond are jurisdictional requirements is incorrect. The NLRC Rules of Procedure mandate the attachment of a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping to a Memorandum of Appeal. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the appeal defective and does not toll the reglementary period for its perfection. Consequently, the Labor Arbiter's Order of Execution became final and executory. On the alleged nullity of the Order of Execution for increasing the judgment award and the effect of the omission of the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping: The Court found the contention regarding the nullity of the Order of Execution to be splitting hairs. While an order of execution must conform to the decision sought to be enforced, the Labor Arbiter's decision had already established that respondents were regular employees of PLDT, not of Peerless Integrated Services, Inc. The increase in the monetary award was justified because the initial computation of backwages in the Labor Arbiter's decision was for the purpose of posting a bond during appeal, and the actual backwages should be computed from the date of dismissal until the finality of the decision. Furthermore, the Labor Arbiter correctly included the period during which PLDT refused to accord respondents regular status and pay them their corresponding wages, even after the lapse of two years from the finality of the Labor Arbiter's decision. Thus, the order of execution correctly computed the wages and other payments due to regular employees. On the issue of reinstatement as regular employees: The Court affirmed the findings of the lower tribunals that respondents were regular employees of PLDT. This is consistent with Articles 279 and 280 of the Labor Code, which provide for security of tenure and define regular employment. The nature of respondents' activities, which were usually necessary or desirable in PLDT's usual business or trade, supported their classification as regular employees, irrespective of any written or oral agreement to the contrary.
Main Doctrine
Failure to attach a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping to a Memorandum of Appeal before the NLRC renders the appeal defective and does not toll the reglementary period for its perfection, causing the assailed order to become final and executory.