Ang Biat Huan Sons Industries v. Social Security System
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Mauro Tinaytina filed a complaint with the Social Security Commission (SSC) alleging that both his former employer, New Bian Yek Commercial, and the petitioner, Ang Biat Huan Sons Industries, Inc., failed to remit his Social Security System (SSS) contributions. Tinaytina claimed continuous employment from 1969 to 1978, working for New Bian Yek Commercial from 1969 to 1975 and for petitioner from 1976 to 1978. Both companies disputed the duration of Tinaytina's employment and their respective liabilities for unpaid contributions and penalties. Procedural History: The SSC found that Tinaytina was employed by New Bian Yek Commercial from July 1973 to June 1975 and by petitioner Ang Biat Huan Sons Industries, Inc. from January 1976 to November 1978. The SSC ordered both companies to pay their respective unpaid contributions, penalties, and, in the case of petitioner, damages for misrepresenting the employee's date of employment. After their motions for reconsideration were denied, petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 43. The CA dismissed the petition, citing defects in the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, the absence of an affidavit of service, and the submission of photocopied, rather than certified true, copies of pertinent documents. The Petition: Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's resolutions that dismissed its appeal. Petitioner argued that the CA erred in dismissing its appeal on technical grounds and sought a review of the SSC's factual findings regarding Tinaytina's employment period and the imposition of damages and penalties. The Supreme Court, however, found that certiorari under Rule 65 was not the proper remedy, as an appeal under Rule 45 was available, and that petitioner failed to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion by the CA. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the CA's dismissal based on the procedural defects, emphasizing that technicalities are set aside only when necessary to prevent grave injustice, which was not the case here.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner's appeal on technical grounds. Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy in this case. Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual findings of the SSC and CA regarding Tinaytina's employment and petitioner's liability.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing petitioner's appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner's appeal on technical grounds: The Court found that the CA correctly dismissed petitioner's appeal. The CA cited three valid grounds: (1) the lack of proof of authority for the signatory of the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, and the failure to have the certification signed by the representative of the other respondent company; (2) the non-attachment of the affidavit of service, which is required by Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court; and (3) the submission of photocopies instead of certified true copies of the SSC resolution and other pertinent documents, in violation of Section 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. These procedural requirements are essential for due process and the orderly administration of justice. The Court rejected petitioner's contention that technicality must give way to substantial justice, stating that technicalities are set aside only when necessary to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with their thoughtlessness in complying with the rules, or when strict application denies rather than serves justice, neither of which was present here. On whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy in this case: The Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper only when a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It is well-established that certiorari will not lie as a substitute for a lost appeal. Petitioner should have filed a petition for review under Rule 45 to question the CA's resolutions. Furthermore, the petition failed to allege that the public respondents acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, which is a prerequisite for a Rule 65 petition. The term "grave abuse of discretion" implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, which must be patent and gross, amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. Petitioner failed to demonstrate such abuse. On whether the Supreme Court can review the factual findings of the SSC and CA regarding Tinaytina's employment and petitioner's liability: The Court held that it cannot review the findings of fact by the SSC and affirmed by the CA, such as the period of Tinaytina's employment with petitioner and the alleged misrepresentation. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion and does not include a review of the correctness of a tribunal's evaluation of evidence. The Supreme Court is proscribed from examining and weighing evidence in a certiorari proceeding, as this is not its province.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal and will not lie absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Technical rules of procedure, such as the requirement for certified true copies and affidavits of service, must be complied with, and cannot be set aside merely on the plea for substantial justice when no injustice commensurate with the thoughtlessness in complying with the rules is shown.