G.R. No.

143424, August 8, 2001

Nature of Action: Petition for Review on Certiorari under
Rule 45
Facts: Danilo Amen-Amen (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) filed
a complaint for illegal suspension and dismissal, separation pay,
13th month pay, performance incentive pay and sick leave pay against
Toyota Davao City, Inc./Duratrak Corp. and/or Jose A. Lim, III,
President before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),
Regional Arbitration Branch No. XI in Davao City. The labor arbiter
ruled in favour of Amen-Amen. The NLRC reversed the appealed
decision, ruling that petitioner’s dismissal from employment was for a
just cause and with due process of law. Petitioner’s motion to
reconsider the above Resolution was denied by the NLRC.
Consequently, petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of
Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court. As mentioned at the outset, the Court of Appeals dismissed the
petition for non-compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure.
Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the
appeal on the ground of lack of explanation of service by registered
mail?
Held: No. It is not disputed that petitioner’s Petition for Certiorari
filed in the Court of Appeals did not contain an explanation why resort
was made to other modes of service of the petition to the parties
concerned. The Court of Appeals considered the same as not having
been filed and dismissed the petition outright. Pursuant to the above-
quoted section, service and filing of pleadings and other papers must,
whenever practicable, be done personally. To underscore the
mandatory nature of this rule requiring personal service whenever
practicable, said section gives the court the discretion to consider a
pleading or paper as not filed if the other modes of service or filing
were resorted to and no written explanation was made as to why
personal service was not done in the first place.”