Que Construction v. Singson
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal against petitioner William Go Que Construction and/or William Go Que, claiming they were regular employees illegally dismissed and denied monetary benefits. Petitioner averred they were project employees and thieves, leading him to file a theft complaint against them. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of private respondents, finding illegal dismissal. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA, finding valid dismissal due to theft but ordering nominal damages for lack of procedural due process. Private respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The CA initially noted a defective jurat in the Affidavit of Service and Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping and directed private respondents to cure the defects. Petitioner pointed out signature variances. Private respondents submitted photocopies of IDs and a joint affidavit attesting to the identity of one respondent who was out of town. The CA, in a Resolution dated November 12, 2009, deemed these submissions as competent evidence of identity and cured the defects. The CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Hence, the instant petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss the petition for certiorari on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of verification and certification against forum shopping, considering the evidence presented to establish the identity of the affiants. Whether the photocopies of identification cards and the joint affidavit submitted by private respondents constituted competent evidence of their identities, thereby curing the defects in the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, and the effect of signature variances on the validity of the verification and certification.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Resolutions dated November 12, 2009 and February 5, 2010 of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 109427 is DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of non-compliance with verification and certification against forum shopping: The Court held that the CA gravely abused its discretion in finding substantial compliance. Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires a pleading to be verified by an affidavit stating that the affiant has read the pleading and the allegations are true of personal knowledge or based on authentic records. A pleading lacking proper verification is treated as unsigned. Section 5, Rule 7 mandates certification under oath regarding the non-commencement or pendency of similar actions. Failure to comply is generally not curable by amendment, unless there are special circumstances or compelling reasons. The Court ruled that there was no substantial compliance with the verification requirement because it could not be ascertained that any of the private respondents actually swore to the truth of the allegations due to the lack of competent evidence of their identities. The fact that even one respondent swore to the truth of the allegations was shrouded in doubt, making the verification process questionable. For the same reason, there was no substantial compliance with the certification against forum shopping. The Court reiterated that non-compliance or defect therein is generally not curable, unless there is a need to relax the rule due to substantial compliance or compelling reasons, which were absent in this case. It remained uncertain if any respondent certified under oath that no similar action was pending. On the sufficiency of the submitted evidence as competent evidence of identity and the effect of signature variances: The Court found that the photocopies of IDs submitted by respondents Singson, Pasaqui, and Lominiqui, which were issued by private entities (La Vista Association, Inc., R.O. Barra Builders & Electrical Services, and St. Charbel Executive Village), did not constitute competent evidence of identity under Section 12(a), Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. These are not official agency-issued identification documents bearing a photograph and signature. Furthermore, their Joint Affidavit identifying respondent Andales was not competent evidence under Section 12(b), Rule II, as the affiants were privy to the instrument, and it cannot be presumed they were personally known to the notary public. The Court noted that the CA failed to address the evident variance in the signatures of the remaining private respondents, Lominiqui and Andales, which petitioner had questioned. The authenticity of their signatures and participation in the case were seriously put into question, further underscoring the lack of proper verification and certification.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss the petition for certiorari on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of verification and certification against forum shopping, as the submitted photocopies of IDs and joint affidavit did not constitute competent evidence of identity, and there was no substantial compliance with the rules.