You are on page 1of 2

AGAPITO C. FIEL, AVELINO Q. REYES and ROY C.

BONBON
v.
KRIS SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., NLRC & CA
April 3, 2003 | Vitug, J. | Pleadings: Complaint: Individuals
Digester: Santiago, Angelo
SUMMARY: Petitioners file a case for illegal dismissal against
their employer Kris Security Systems Inc. The LA rules in favor of
them but on appeal, the NLRC reversed. The CA dismissed Fiel et
al.s petition on the ground that a 4th petitioner, Diomedes Uray,
did not sign the vcertification and verification of non-forum
shopping. The SC, in the greater interest of justice, does not fault
the three petitioners who complied with Rule 7, Sec. 5. Thus, the
SC remanded the case to the CA for adjudication on merits.
DOCTRINE: The petitioners who have faithfully observed the
rules mandated in Section 5, Rule 7, of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, by signing the requisite verification and certification on
non-forum shopping, should not be unduly prejudiced by the fault
of their co-petitioner [in failing or omitting to sign the petition]
who apparently has lost interest in pursuing his case.
FACTS:
Petitioners Agapito Fiel, Avelino Reyes, and Roy Bonbon were
employed by respondent Kris Security Systems as security
guards and were posted at Dunkin Donut, Imus Central Kitchen
Department in Imus, Cavite.
1998. October: On different dates, however, Kris terminated
their services.
October 13: Petitioners file a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Kris: it did not dismiss petitioners but they were pulled out
because of the clients request.
LA: Petitioners constructively dismissed. Kris to reinstate them
and pay full backwages.
NLRC appeal: reversed LA. Petitioners MR denied.
CA via Rule 65: Petition dismissed.
Basis: petition violated Sec. 5, Rule 7 of CivPro because
only 3 of the 4 petitioners signed the mandatory verification
and certification of non-forum shopping.
Thus, this petition.
RULING: Petition GRANTED. CA Resolutions SET ASIDE. Case
REMANDED to CA for adjudication on the merits of the petition
before it.

Whether the dismissal of a petition for certiorari under Rule


65 on the mere technicality that said petition was signed,
certified, and verified by only 3 out of 4 named petitioners is
correct NO
Petitioners bring to the Courts attention the following
circumstances:
1. Loquias, et al. v. Office of the Ombudsman where 1 of 5
petitioners signed the certification of their petition is not
properly applicable here where 3 of 4 signed the
verification of their petition.
2. DAR v. Alonzo-Legasto: (only 1 of 4 couples signed the
petition) requirement of a certification of non-forum
shopping should not be interpreted with such absolute
literalness as to subvert the goal of achieving substantial
justice supplanted/modified Loquias.
3. St. Michael Academy v. NLRC: technical rules of pleading
are not enforced strictly in labor cases especially where
they will defeat the substantive rights of employees
4. De Ysasi III v. NLRC: Courts must heed the underlying
policy in the LC relaxing the application of technical rules
of procedure in labor cases.
5. Though there was one other named petitioner in the
petition, his failure to sign the petition should not prejudice
the three petitioners who are without fault.
6. The failure or omission to delete Diomedes Uray (the 4th
petitioner who failed or omitted to sign) the petition filed
with the CA was an excusable oversight or lapse by
petitioners attorneys pro bono.
7. Giving due course to the petition insofar as the 3
petitioners who signed the petition are concerned by
dismissing the petition insofar as the 4th petitioner is
concerned would be a fair, reasonable and equitable
disposition of the petition filed with the CA.
8. An outright dismissal of the petition on a procedural or
technical omission would deprive petitioners of their right
to be heard on the merits of their petition which calls for
the rectification of acts of grave abuse of discretion by the
NLRC.
Respondents: prayed the petition be denied and the CA
decision be affirmed.
COURT:

The greater interest of justice would be served if the petition


for certiorari filed by petitioners before the CA is adjudicated
on its merits with respect to the three petitioners who have
signed the verification and certification on non-forum shopping
than to make them all pay for the failure of their co-petitioner
Diomedes Uray to observe his own compliance with the rules.
The three petitioners who have faithfully observed the
rules mandated in Section 5, Rule 7, of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, by signing the requisite verification and
certification on non-forum shopping, should not be
unduly prejudiced by the fault of their co-petitioner who
apparently has lost interest in pursuing his case.

The technical rules of procedure should be used to promote,


not frustrate, the cause of justice. While the swift unclogging of
court dockets is a laudable aim, the just resolution of cases on
their merits, however, cannot be sacrificed merely in order to
achieve that objective.
Rules of procedure are tools designed not to thwart but to
facilitate the attainment of justice; thus, their strict and rigid
application may, for good and deserving reasons, have to give
way to, and be subordinated by, the need to aptly dispense
substantial justice in the normal course.

You might also like