CIVPRO - MORENO DIGESTS 2020 - 2021

8 MARTOS V. NEW SAN JOSE BUILDERS LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF PROCEDURAL RULES

RULE 1, SECTION 6

FELIX MARTOS, et. al Petitioners, vs. NEW SAN JOSE BUILDERS, INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 192650, October 24, 2012
Erap City, Verification
Mendoza, J.

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 (1) does not subvert the essence of the
proceeding and it (2) 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.

FACTS:

Respondent corporation New San Jose Builders, INC. is a domestic corporation

organized under Philippine laws engaged in the construction of roads, bridges, buildings,
and low-cost houses primarily for the governments. One of these projects is the San Jose
Project or better known as Erap City, which called for the construction of low-cost housing to
be turned over to the National Housing Authority and subsequently awarded to deserving
families.
Private petitioners alleged that they were hired by the respondent corporation on
different positions during various dates.
Due to the lack of funds of the National Housing Authority, respondent corporation
was forced to slow down and suspend most of the works in the San Jose Project. Workers
were also informed that many of them would be laid off or reassigned to other projects.
Villaber, Melvin Garay, Batta, Pantig, Villa, Terso Garay would be laid off.
Meanwhile, Felix Martos, Ariel Dominguez, Greg Bisonia, Allan Caballera,
Orlando Limos, Mandy Mamalateo, Eric Castrence, Anthony Molina, and Roy Silva
were retained and re-assigned to new assignments. However, they refused to sign
these papers and to work since they were indicated as project employees.
3 money claims were filed against respondent corporation by the petitioners who
claimed to be the employees of the former. The respondent corporation denies that they
were illegally dismissed, and alleged that the petitioners were project employees whose
employments were automatically terminated upon completion of the project they were hired
for.
The Labor Arbiter declared that Martos, among others, were illegally dismissed and
entitled to separation pay, backwages, and other monetary benefits; and dismissing, without
prejudice, the complaints of the other complainants.
Both parties appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC partially granted the appeal of the
petitioners in the part where their complaints were dismissed, except that of Martos. The

CIVPRO - MORENO DIGESTS (2020 - 2021)

BUCU, GOLLA, GUICO, PALOMERA
CIVPRO - MORENO DIGESTS 2020 - 2021
8 MARTOS V. NEW SAN JOSE BUILDERS LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF PROCEDURAL RULES

RULE 1, SECTION 6

appeal of New San Jose Builders, Inc., to the part of the decision wherein Martos was
declared a regular employee and thus were illegally dismissed, was dismissed.
Respondents are likewise ordered to pay complainants their salary differentials,
service incentive leave pay, and 13th month pay, using, as basis, the computation made on
the claims of complainant Felix Martos.
Upon appeal to the CA, the decision of the LA was reinstated. It explained that
NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion in reviving the complaints of the petitioners
despite their failure to verify the same. However, the same court ruled that Martos was a
regular employee and that his termination was illegal.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the complaints filed by those petitioners
who failed to verify their position papers.

HELD:

No, the absence of a proper verification under Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure is a cause to treat the pleading as unsigned and dismissible. Furthermore,
the liberal construction may be invoked where there may be some excusable formal
deficiency or error in a pleading, provided that:
(1) the same does not subvert the essence of the proceeding; and
(2) that it connotes a reasonable attempt at compliance with the rules.

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

CIVPRO - MORENO DIGESTS (2020 - 2021)

BUCU, GOLLA, GUICO, PALOMERA
CIVPRO - MORENO DIGESTS 2020 - 2021
8 MARTOS V. NEW SAN JOSE BUILDERS LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF PROCEDURAL RULES

RULE 1, SECTION 6

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. (n)

Failure to comply with these requirements is not curable by mere amendment of the
complaint or other initiatory pleading, but shall cause for the dismissal of the case. 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 in good faith.
Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one has ample
knowledge to swear 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.
The absence of a proper verification is cause to treat the pleading as unsigned and
dismissible. The lone signature of Martos would have been sufficient if he was authorized by
his co-petitioners to sign then. However, petitioners failed to produce proof that Martos was
authorized.
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 (1) does not subvert the essence of the proceeding and it (2) 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.
The dismissal of the other complainants was without prejudice, as such the
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. They committed
the same procedural error when they filed their appeal with the NLRC.

CIVPRO - MORENO DIGESTS (2020 - 2021)

BUCU, GOLLA, GUICO, PALOMERA