MARTOS VS. NEW SAN JOSE BUILDERS;

G.R. No. 192650; October 24, 2012

Relevance to Criminal Procedure: Liberal Construction of Procedural Rules

Facts:

Petitioner New San Jose Builders, Inc. is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing
under the laws of the Philippines and is engaged in the construction of road, bridges, buildings,
and low cost houses primarily for the government. One of the projects of petitioner is the San
Jose Plains Project. SJPP, calls for the construction of low cost housing, which are being turned
over to the National Housing Authority to be awarded to deserving poor families. Private
respondents alleged that, on various dates, petitioner hired them on different positions.

Sometime in 2000, petitioner was constrained to slow down and suspend most of the works on
the SJPP project due to lack of funds of the National Housing Authority. Thus, the workers were
informed that many of them would be laid off and the rest would be reassigned to other projects.
Some who were retained and were issued new appointment papers to their respective
assignments, indicating therein that they are project employees. However, they refused to sign
the appointment papers as project employees and subsequently refused to continue to work.

On different dates, three (3) Complaints for Illegal Dismissal and for money claims were filed
before the NLRC against petitioner and Jose Acuzar, by private respondents who claimed to be
the former employees of petitioner. Petitioner denies that private respondents were illegally
dismissed, and alleged that they were project employees, whose employments were
automatically terminated upon completion of the project for which they were hired. On the other
hand, private respondents claim that petitioner hired them as regular employees, continuously
and without interruption.

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

As earlier stated, on May 23, 2003, the LA handed down a decision declaring, among
others, that petitioner Felix Martos was illegally dismissed and entitled toseparation pay,
backwages and other monetary benefits; and dismissing, without prejudice, the
complaints/claims of the other complainants (petitioenrs).

Ruling of the NLRC

Both parties appealed the LA decision to the NLRC. Petitioners appealed that part which
dismissed all the complaints, without prejudice, except that of Martos. On the otherhand,
New San Jose Builders, Inc. (respondent)

Ruling of the CA
 The CA stated that the factual circumstances of Martos' employment and his dismissal
from work could not equally apply to petitioners because they were not similarly situated.
The NLRC did not even bother to look at the evidence on record and inappropriately
granted monetary awards to petitioners who had either denied having filed a case or
withdrawn the case against respondent. According to the CA, the position papers should
have covered only those claims and causes of action raised in the complaint excluding
those that might have been amicably settled. With respect to Martos, the CA ruled that
he was a regular employee of respondent and his termination was illegal. It explained
that Martos should have been considered a regular employee because there was no
indication that he was merely a project employee when he was hired.

Issue:

Petitioners appeal was dismissed due to comply with the verification requirement.

Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provide:

SEC. 4. Verification. – Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule,

pleadings need not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit.

A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleadings and that the
allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic
records.

A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on "information

and belief" or upon "knowledge, information and belief" or lacks a proper verification,
shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.

SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. – The plaintiff or principal party shall certify
under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a
sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith:

(a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the
same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other
pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he
should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of
the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without
prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false
certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect
contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If
the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the
same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt,
as well as a cause for administrative sanctions. x x x. [Emphases supplied]

The verification requirement is significant, as it is intended to secure an assurance that the

allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a
matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.10 Verification is deemed
substantially complied with when, as in this case, one who has ample knowledge to swear to the
truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters
alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.11

The absence of a proper verification is cause to treat the pleading as unsigned and dismissible.

The liberal construction of the rules may be invoked in situations where there may be some
excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, provided that the same does not subvert the
essence of the proceeding and it at least connotes a reasonable attempt at compliance with the
rules.

Besides, fundamental is the precept that rules of procedure are meant not to thwart but to
facilitate the attainment of justice; hence, their rigid application may, for deserving reasons, be
subordinated by the need for an apt dispensation of substantial justice in the normal course.
They ought to be relaxed when there is subsequent or even substantial compliance, consistent
with the policy of liberality espoused by Rule 1, Section 6.14 Not being inflexible, the rule on
verification allows for such liberality

Considering that the dismissal of the other complaints by the LA was without prejudice,
the other complainants should have taken the necessary steps to rectify their procedural
mistake after the decision of the LA was rendered. They should have corrected this
procedural flaw by immediately filing another complaint with the correct verification this
time. Surprisingly, they did not even attempt to correct this technical blunder. Worse,
they committed the same procedural error when they filed their appeal16 with the NLRC.