You are on page 1of 7

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

160455 May 9, 2005 ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY and ED IN P. !ERNA", petitioners, vs. #OVITA S. MANA"O, respondent. D !ISION DAVIDE, #R., C.J.$ In this petition for revie" on certiorari under Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt, petitioners ur%e this !ourt to reverse the Resolutions of &' (anuar) &**' and *' October &**' of the !ourt of +ppeals , i%hth Division-, "hich, respectivel), dis.issed, insofar as petitioners are concerned, the petition for certiorari doc/eted as !.+.01.R. SP No. 2#344 and entitled "Ateneo de Naga University, Fr. Joel Tabora, S.J., and Mr. Edwin P. Bernal vs. on. National !abor "elations #o$$ission and Jovita S. Manalo" on the %round that the verification and certification a%ainst foru. shoppin% "as si%ned onl) b) Fr. Tabora, and denied the .otion to reconsider the for.er. The controvers) ste..ed fro. the co.plaint for constructive dis.issal, "ith pra)er for .oral and e5e.plar) da.a%es and attorne)6s fees, filed b) respondent "ith the Sub0 Re%ional +rbitration 7ranch No. $ of the National 8abor Relations !o..ission ,N8R!in Na%a !it) a%ainst petitioners +teneo de Na%a 9niversit) ,+DN9- and Dean d"in P. 7ernal of +DN96s !olle%e of !o..erce, and +DN9 President Fr. (oel Tabora, S.(. This co.plaint "as doc/eted as Sub0R+7 *$0*#0**::30**. In its decision of :' Dece.ber &***,: 8abor +rbiter (esus Orlando M. ;ui<ones rendered =ud%.ent a%ainst petitioners and Fr. Tabora. The labor arbiter found respondent to have been constructivel) dis.issed "hen she "as transferred fro. the +ccountanc) Depart.ent of the !olle%e of !o..erce to the Depart.ent of Social Sciences of the !olle%e of +rts and Sciences of petitioner +DN9 after bein% char%ed "ith alle%ed .is.ana%e.ent of the +teneo de Na%a Multi0Purpose !ooperative. The labor arbiter did not, ho"ever, a"ard .oral and e5e.plar) da.a%es to respondent. On appeal b) the contendin% parties, the N8R! affir.ed in toto the decision of the labor arbiter and denied the .otion for reconsideration filed b) petitioners and Fr. Tabora in its resolution of &> March &**&& and '* +u%ust &**&,' respectivel). ?ence, petitioners and Fr. Tabora filed "ith the !ourt of +ppeals on && Nove.ber &**& a petition for certiorariunder Rule >$ of the Rules of !ourt ascribin% %rave abuse of discretion a.ountin% to lac/ or e5cess of =urisdiction on the part of the N8R!. The petition "as doc/eted as !+ 0 1.R. SP No. 2#344. ?o"ever, as stated at the outset, the !ourt of +ppeals dis.issed the said petition in a Resolution dated &' (anuar) &**', findin% the verification and certification a%ainst foru. shoppin% attached to the petition to have been si%ned onl) b) Fr. Tabora, thus@ The instant petition for certiorari is outri%htl) DISMISS D, as its verification and

shoppin% not onl) for hi. shoppin%. Tabora "as its official representative.ber &**&.ust be si%natories to the certification of non0foru. On &2 (une &**'.ent to Opposition and Manifestation and Opposition to Motion to 5pun%e fro.# On :' Februar) &**'. Tabora had authorit) to represent +DN9 in his capacit) as president and not on the basis of an) secretar)6s certificate. Tabora "as so authoriAed. +DN9.e and reiteratin% their .ar) petitioner. shoppin% are si%ned b) onl) one of the three petitioners. in particular his si%nin% of the certificate of non0foru.a Secretar)6s !ertificate dated *> Nove. Tabora to file the petition for certiorari "as attached to the . Fr. no secretar)6s certificate or board resolution authoriAin% Fr. Tabora filed a .ent . and in such capacit). Cith respect to petitioner 7ernal. petitioners and Fr. Petitioners and Fr. In her Repl) to !o. petitioners ar%ued that Fr.. Tabora6s acts in connection "ith the filin% of the petition forcertiorari.in% that a Special Po"er of +ttorne) "as e5ecuted prior to the filin% of the petition for certiorari.ber &**& resolution of +DN96s 7oard of Trustees authoriAin% Fr.otion for reconsideration of the !ourt of +ppeals6 &' (anuar) &**' Resolution. petitioners and Fr. Tabora to file the petition for certiorari and si%n the verification and certificate of non0foru. the Records dated *4 (ul) &**'. and . shoppin%. In Loquias vs.ent to Opposition and Manifestation "ith Motion to 5pun%e fro. Tabora "as authoriAed to file the petition for certiorari for the pri. "hich the) ad. he "as dul) authoriAed to si%n for and in its behalf.e. Petitioners e5plained that as president of +DN9. Tabora attached to their co.self but also for petitioners herein.ent of the Petitioners dated :# (ul) &**'. Office of the Ombudsman (338 SCRA 62 [2 !". shoppin% unless one is authoriAed b) the other petitioners. Tabora to . neither petitioner 7ernal nor Fr. petitioners stron%l) ar%ued that Fr.otion for reconsideration. On :> (ul) &**'.. the Records "ith Motion to 5pun%e !o. +t the sa. Tabora filed their !o. the records for havin% been filed out of ti.it to have inadvertentl) failed to attach to their petition for certiorari and "hich the) onl) attached to their .oved fro. So ordered. Tabora "as dul) authoriAed b) petitioner 7ernal to si%n for and in his behalf.:. respondent contended that even assu.certification a%ainst non0foru. .:: respondent called attention to the failure of petitioners and Fr.otion.ber &**&4 attestin% to a *# Nove. She also noted that in the said . as evidenced b) the Special Po"er of +ttorne)> dated :3 Nove.otion for reconsideration.a Secretar)6s !ertificate dated *2 (ul) &**':* attestin% to a resolution of +DN96s 7oard of Trustees on even date ratif)in% Fr.&.otion for reconsideration $ of the fore%oin% resolution on the %round that Fr. 8i/e"ise.. 2 assertin% that "ith respect to petitioner +DN9. Other"ise. the petition is fatall) defective. it "as held that all petitioners . respondent filed an Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration "ith Motion to +d..otion for reconsiderationB neither "as there an alle%ation to the effect that Fr. Tabora si%ned the verification and certification of non0foru.it Opposition dated &> (une &**'.3 pra)in% that respondent6s opposition be re.e ti.ention the certificates in their petition for certiorari and .

entioned in the petition. It should be noted that Ce are not persuaded b) the late filin% of the Special Po"er of +ttorne) e5ecuted b) 7ernal in favor of Fr. 7ernal are concerned. The) alle%e therein that the !ourt of +ppeals co.on interest. Ce cannot see an) reason "h) despite havin% priorl) authoriAed Fr.andated in Section $.-( A/&i$ 3( 2 3" +ccordin%l).issin% the petition as far as the) "ere concerned.ilar resolution of authorit) to Fr. Rule 2 of the :442 Rules of !ivil Procedure.erits "ith respect to the three petitioners "ho have si%ned the verification and certification on non0foru. +!!ORDIN18G. 2#344. the) assert .po"er. Rule #> of the Rules of !ourt b) subseFuentl) presentin% proof that Fr. shoppin% on their behalf.e 7oard of Trustees "ill unani. on (ul) 2.itted %ross and pre=udicial error in dis.(.issal STANDS. onl) insofar as the si%nin% petitioner. unconvinced b) petitioners6 ar%u. it should have been . Tabora "as authoriAed to si%n the certificate of non0foru.. (oel Tabora. Tabora. D:& Petitioners then filed "ith this !ourt the petition at bar. %&is Secu&it' S'stems( )nc. +s to the other t"o . &**& "as never .R. S.( *. Note"orth) too is that the Secretar)6s !ertificate dated Nove.petitioners. SP No. The three petitioners "ho have faithfull) observed the rules . Tabora and 7ernal.ents and the docu. The) ar%ue that the) and Fr.otion for reconsideration insofar as petitioners are concerned but %rantin% it relative to Fr. . For if indeed said e.&Secretar)6s !ertificates D. all pa) for the failure of their co0petitionerDto observe his o"n co.a/e the. that the) collectivel) filed the petition to uphold their co. None "as alle%ed in the petition. &**'. Fr.ousl) pass and adopt another si.pliance "ith the rules. and that the) have substantiall) co. petitioners6 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED insofar as petitioners +teneo de Na%a 9niversit) and d"in P. the above dis.ber >. shoppin%Dthan to .ore recent case. Thus.E (#ie$ v.odified "hen the ?i%h !ourt ruled@ EThe %reater interest of =ustice "ould be served if the petition for certiorari filed b) petitioners before the !ourt of +ppeals is ad=udicated on its . issued a resolution den)in% the . It ruled@ DIn a . Moreover. the dis.ber >.--8. shoppin%.&. and this petition is ordered REINSTATED as far as he is concerned. 7ernal. +o. Loquias "as . b) si%nin% the reFuisite verification and certification on non0foru. Tabora share a co. TaboraD. Tabora and 7ernal on Nove.On *' October &**'.ents "ere e5istin% before the filin% hereof.. is concerned.The sa.e on hi%h suspicion. &**& to file the petition at bar. should not be undul) pre=udiced b) the fault of their co0petitioner "ho apparentl) has lost interest in pursuin% his case.issal order is hereb) RECONSIDERED AND SET ASIDE.atter of !+01.ents the) presented.entioned in petitioners6 Motion for Reconsideration thereb) puttin% the sa.R. the !ourt of +ppeals. the sa..e is GRANTED relative to petitioner Fr.on interest in the sub=ect .plied "ith Section '. +teneo de Na%a 9niversit) and d"in P. ho"ever.e is true "ith the t"o . "hile the sa. (oel Tabora.

not .ade in %ood faith or are true and correct. as in that case. Tabora. +fter the filin% b) petitioners of the Repl) to the !o.ed sufficient assurance that the ..erel) speculative.ed substantiall) co.e to pla) in the case at hand H one. Rule #> of the Rules of !ourt. this !ourt e5plained in Torres vs. shoppin%. at the . Tabora have no cause of action a%ainst either respondent or the N8R!. this !ourt finds that. t"o out of &$ real parties0in0interest.per the application of the rules on verification and certification a%ainst foru.. S%eciali&ed Pac'aging (evelo%$ent #or%oration:# that such reFuire. "ho undoubtedl) have sufficient /no"led%e and belief to s"ear to the truth of the alle%ations in the petition. Invo/in% substantial co. Fr. petitioners are as/in% this !ourt to te. Rule 2 of the Rules of !ourtB and t"o.:$ +ppl)in% the fore%oin% to the instant petition. the authorit) of Fr.plied "ith "hen. Specificall).ent.u. under Section '.ent. this !ourt is confronted "ith the Fuestion of "hether the !ourt of +ppeals correctl) dis. respondent additionall) declared their sub. Tabora do not share a co.s that petitioners and Fr. Tabora. +s re%ards the verification reFuire. "ere ad=ud%ed liable b) the labor arbiter and the N8R!.ent.ent. shoppin% to forestall the dis.that such dis. +lthou%h belatedl) sho"n.on interest as not all of the.ade in %ood faith or are true and correct. In her !o. on verification. Tabora to si%n on behalf of petitioners is apparent fro.it) "ith the applicable decisions of this !ourt.it their respective . In fact. on the certification a%ainst foru. shoppin%. si%ned the verification attached to it. therefore. the lone si%nature of Fr. +s re%ards the certificates. petitioner 7ernal and Fr. the record.erit in the instant petition.issal "as irre%ular and not in confor.ission of the Special Po"er of +ttorne) and Secretar)6s !ertificates "as hi%hl) suspect.self a part) to the instant case. Tabora has sufficient /no"led%e to s"ear to the truth of the alle%ations in their petition for certiorarifiled "ith the !ourt of +ppeals. Onl) petitioner +DN9 "as held liable for the relief %rantedB as such. is sufficient assurance that the alle%ations in their petition have been .issal of their petition before the !ourt of +ppeals.oranda.atters alle%ed in the petition have been . Tabora is sufficient to stand for petitioners +DN9 and 7ernal. the proble.ini. Tabora is sufficient to fulfill the verification reFuire. +s +DN96s president and hi. T"o separate rules co.ent is dee. Once a%ain.erel) speculative. Fr. "hich the) later did.. is a real part)0in0interest.issed the petition for certiorari insofar as petitioners are concerned for lac/ of proper verification and certification a%ainst foru. 9ndoubtedl).pliance. Such verification is dee. ?is si%nature. in this case is not the lac/ of verification and certification but the adeFuac) of one e5ecuted b) onl) one of three petitioners in the !ourt of +ppeals.pliance "ith Section '. the si%nature of Fr. under Section #. Rule #> of the Rules of !ourt as their belated sub.e. not . the !ourt %ave due course to the petition and reFuired the parties to sub. "hose acts as president of petitioner +DN9 are in issue.:' respondent clai.ission to be evidentl) an afterthou%ht as the) "ere put for"ard onl) after respondent repeatedl) pointed out the absence of authorit) of Fr. .. Respondent further averred that petitioners cannot invo/e substantial co. This !ourt finds .

ption .ents for the speed) and efficient ad.:3 The rule of lon% standin% is that a public docu.&*The dela) in the presentation of the docu. the) nonetheless confir. +bsent such evidence. Tabora to si%n on behalf of petitioners cannot be allo"ed to defeat the petition for certiorari filed "ith the !ourt of +ppeals. it can be said that there "as at least substantial co. the presu. this !ourt has held that rules of procedure are established to secure substantial =ustice. Ti. ho"ever.e and a%ain. !onsiderin% the fore%oin%. shoppin% and verification "ill . uneFuivocal .ust stand and the special po"er of attorne) and secretar)6s certificates . "hich this !ourt cannot countenance. public docu. Such dis.Thus. this !ourt finds Fr. the) had alread) sub.itted onl) after the filin% of said petition. and to their !o. This !ourt. Tabora to file the petition for certiorari and si%n the verification and certification a%ainst foru. Tabora to si%n on behalf of petitioners.ent e5ecuted and attested throu%h the intervention of a notar) public is evidence of the facts in a clear. Chile these docu.pliance "ith.ents H cannot stand a%ainst the presu. +n) suspicion on the authenticit) and due e5ecution of the special po"er of attorne) and the t"o secretar)6s certificates.anner therein e5pressed.. Tabora to be dul) authoriAed to si%n on behalf of petitioners the verification attached to their petition for certiorari. the) . Tabora6s acts in connection "ith the filin% of said petition. in fact.otion for reconsideration "as a Special Po"er of +ttorne):> dated :3 Nove.ore than .erel) preponderant. is not persuaded.ents. not to derail it.e reason. a dul) authoriAed si%nator).:4 In the instant case.itted proof of their confer. the Records dated *4 (ul) &**' "ere attached the Secretar)6s !ertificates:2 sho"in% that +DN96s 7oard of Trustees authoriAed Fr.ber &**& and the t"o secretar)6s certificates.ents "ere not attached to the petition for certiorari filed "ith the !ourt of +ppeals and "ere sub. shoppin%. and. In effect.ent upon Fr. and that there "as no atte. "hich are notariAed docu. e5cept for respondent6s bare alle%ations to cast doubt on these docu.ent to Opposition and Manifestation "ith Motion to 5pun%e fro.ust be upheld. convincin%.ber &**&. "hen a strict and literal application of the rules on non0foru. shoppin%. It appearin% that Fr.ents sho"in% the authorit) of Fr.issal e5alts technicalit) over substantial ri%ht. Tabora to si%n on behalf of petitioners in vie" of the belated filin% of the Special Po"er of +ttorne) dated :3 Nove.. for the sa.pt to i%nore. the authorit) of Fr. respondent "ould have this !ourt discredit these docu. Tabora to act on behalf of petitioners in filin% the petition. Tabora "as. attached to petitioners6 .ents H and as such.inistration of =ustice. 7) the ti.e the !ourt of +ppeals resolved to uphold its dis. Tabora of the authorit) to si%n the verification and certification a%ainst foru. "hich respondent asserts as suspect. shoppin% and ratified Fr. 7ein% instru. the certification a%ainst foru.ents.ption of re%ularit) in their favor absent evidence that is clear.issal of the petition as to the.ents to render baseless the supposed authorit) of Fr. &: In particular.ust be used to achieve such end. the prescribed procedural reFuire. there "as no evidence adduced in support thereof. Respondent assails the authorit) of Fr. and .

&' This !ourt has also applied the rule of substantial co. the instant petition is 1R+NT D. petitioner +DN9 "as the one specificall) ordered b) the N8R! to . 2#344 are S T +SID . petitioner +DN9 is an indispensable part) "ithout "ho.effect and pa) respondent6s additional annual across the board increase of salar). %ERE&ORE.stances.pa) respondent ten percent of the total a.. &oo'no'() : "ollo. The assailed Resolutions of the !ourt of +ppeals in !+ H 1.ediatel) reinstate respondent to her for. .ission of such certification albeit the proof of authorit) of the si%nator) "as put for"ard onl) after. The outri%ht dis.ent of said petition is "arranted b) the substantial ri%ht and freedo.ination can be had of said petition.ission of such certification considerin% that althou%h it is obli%ator). and A&c*na. +nares. ' -d..ination of the substantive issues.&# If this !ourt has. SP No.a) be liberall) construed. shoppin%. SO ORDERED.el) sub.&& Moreover.e procedural i. allo"ances. #ar%io. at the option of respondent.i.perfections. and benefits or their . :>$0:>>. "ith .entB .onetar) eFuivalentB and . &$ In fact. effect pa)roll reinstate. No pronounce. of educational institutions. no final deter.Santiago. in previous rulin%s. as re%ards the certification a%ainst foru.. & -d. and said !+01. Moreover.inistration of =ustice and result in a patent denial of substantial =ustice.R. these . this !ourt has rela5ed. concur.pliance under =ustifiable circu. The reinstate. shoppin% for co.. $ -d.ore reason should it sanction the ti.ined on the .. > -d.ent as to costs.pellin% reasons. SP No.issal of the petition for certiorari as far as petitioners are concerned "ould defeat the ad.&> The ends of =ustice are better served "hen cases are deter. under =ustifiable circu. it is not =urisdictional. the rule reFuirin% the sub.ount a"arded representin% attorne)6s fees.. :*#0:*>. on the one hand. #2. 2#344 is ordered R INST+T D as far as petitioners are concerned for further proceedin%s. 4*0:*'. )*is*$bing. on the other hand. involved H the ri%ht of e.ic freedo. the petition for certiorari before the !ourt of +ppeals should be reinstated for proper deter. JJ.:.er position or. 7oth petitioners 7ernal and +DN9 have substantial interests to protect as their ver) acts are the ones sub=ect of the petition before the !ourt of +ppeals. :$>0:>#.erits H after all parties are %iven full opportunit) to ventilate their causes and defenses H rather than on technicalit) or so.stances "ith respect to the contents of the certification.&. # "ollo.plo)ees. allo"ed the belated filin% of the certification a%ainst foru.result in a patent denial of substantial =ustice. and the acade. 2'034.R.&2 +ccordin%l).'.

.. :#&42#.ent !orporation. '$2 Phil. :: Nove. citin% Ia. (ud%e .ission. SpecialiAed Pac/a%in% Develop. :: -d. #&$. :> "ollo. No. citin% M! n%ineerin%. &'# S!R+ :4&.ediate +ppellate !ourt. citin% Far astern Shippin% !o. 1. #:: S!R+ '32. *3 March &**:. :$$ S!R+ $&*.Inter. !ourt of +ppeals. '* +pril &**'. !ourt of +ppeals. SpecialiAed Pac/a%in% Develop. '2' Phil. s*%ra. && 7an/ of the Philippine Islands v. s*%ra.R.uitain. #:& Phil. :4 -d. :#>4&'. :# 1.ber &**'. National 8abor Relations !o. citin% 1evero v. :>$0:>>. &* 1eneral Millin% !orporation v.2 3 -d. ##& Phil.. and 1abionAa v. '* +u%ust :44*. :4:0&*:. citin% Robern Develop. &: Torres v. :420:43. '4'. :#4>'#. SpecialiAed Pac/a%in% Develop. Rules of !ourt. &:>0&:3... &> "ollo. :3'.!ourt of +ppeals. s*%ra. (ud%e ..R. . No. citin% Paras v. &2 Torres v. 7aldado. :3 (ul) :44#.. 22*&4. &$ Section 2. 1. 802*3$>. :3&0:3'.R.ent !orporation.R. :3 +lfarero v. 3$4. citin% Robern Develop. National 8abor Relations !o.&**:-. No. :#>. '$# S!R+ :#:. Sevilla.. s*%ra.. :34 S!R+ &*:..R.:443-. && Septe. #&2 . '* (ul) :44'. Rule '. &&# S!R+ 3$$.ent !orporation v.. SpecialiAed Pac/a%in% Develop.ent !orporation. 22'.R. 33034. !ourt of +ppeals. :' "ollo. #*& S!R+ ##4.ediate +ppellate !ourt.bo v. v. Inc. :3&. :2 -d. :>40:2&.ission. v. 1. :#*2:'. $&4. *> (ul) &**#. :*#:>>. >&&0>&' . :$ Torres v. >:#.ent !orporation. No. &# -d. :2'0:3*. No. 2&* . -d.. 23> .:444-. :* -d.&**&-. 4 "ollo. &*>B Rebuldela v. No.ber :432.Inter. 1. :& "ollo. &' Torres v.uitain. s*%ra. #40$:. 2*'.ent !orporation v. 1. No.