Facts:

This case involves Ang Biat Huan Sons Industries, Inc., represented by Eduardo Ang Gobonseng, Sr., as the petitioner, and the Court of Appeals, Social Security System (SSS), and Mauro Tinaytina, substituted by his wife, Gloria Tinaytina, as respondents. Mauro Tinaytina was employed as a cargo truck driver first by New Bian Yek Commercial and later by the petitioner, Ang Biat Huan Sons Industries, Inc. Disputes arose regarding the remittance of Tinaytina's Social Security contributions. In 1997, he filed a complaint with the Social Security Commission (SSC), asserting that neither company had remitted his social security contributions during his employment. New Bian Yek Commercial claimed he was only employed from July 1973 to November 1974, while the petitioner argued that his employment spanned from October 1, 1976, to September 30, 1977, asserting that all required social security contributions had been remitted. The SSC conducted an examination and ruled that Tinaytina wa

...

Facts:

Employment and Background

• Private respondent Mauro Tinaytina was employed as a cargo truck driver, first by New Bian Yek Commercial and later by petitioner Ang Biat Huan Sons Industries, Inc.
• Tinaytina later initiated legal proceedings based on alleged discrepancies in his social security (SS) coverage and contributions.

The Complaint Before the Social Security Commission (SSC)

• In 1997, Tinaytina filed a complaint with the SSC seeking an adjustment of the date of SS coverage and remittance of unpaid contributions.
• Tinaytina asserted his continuous employment with the two companies—claiming service from 1969 up to 1978—although the companies disputed the exact periods of his employment.
• New Bian Yek Commercial contended that Tinaytina was under its employ only from July 1973 to November 1974, while petitioner claimed his employment was from October 1, 1976 to September 30, 1977.

SSC Findings and Resolution

• The SSC determined that the factual employment periods were different from the parties’ submissions:
• Tinaytina was found to be an employee of New Bian Yek Commercial from July 1973 to June 1975.
• He was found to have been employed by petitioner from January 1976 to November 1978.
• The SSC ordered New Bian Yek Commercial and petitioner to pay their respective unpaid SS contributions plus a penalty calculated at 3% per month for late payments.
• Additionally, petitioner was held liable for P45,600 as damages for misrepresenting Tinaytina’s true employment dates under Section 24(b) of the Social Security Law, as amended.
• The SSC also mandated that the Social Security System (SSS) immediately pay the appropriate death benefit pension to Tinaytina’s wife, Gloria Tinaytina, who had substituted for the deceased.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) and Procedural Motions

• Both petitioner and New Bian Yek Commercial filed motions for reconsideration regarding the SSC resolution, which were subsequently denied by the SSC.
• Petitioner then sought review before the CA by filing an appeal under Rule 43.
• The CA, in its resolutions dated January 31, 2002 and June 18, 2002, dismissed petitioner’s appeal on technical grounds:
• The verification and certification on non-forum shopping were signed by petitioner’s representative without proper proof of authority.
• The required affidavit of service was not attached as mandated by Section 13 of Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.
• Additionally, several documents were merely photocopies rather than certified true copies as required.

Petition for Certiorari Under Rule 65

• Aggrieved by the CA’s dismissal, petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
• The petition sought to have the CA resolutions set aside on the ground that the CA misapplied the law by relying on technical defects rather than addressing the substantive issues.
• Petitioner also contested the SSC’s factual findings regarding Tinaytina’s employment dates and the corresponding liabilities imposed on petitioner.

Procedural and Jurisprudential Context

• The petition raised arguments regarding the proper use of Rule 65, emphasizing that technicalities should not override substantial justice.
• It was contended that a petition for certiorari is not a substitute for an appeal when an ordinary remedy (i.e., petition for review under Rule 45) is available.
• Petitioner further alleged that neither the CA nor the SSC demonstrated that they acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.

Issue:

Whether the CA erred in dismissing petitioner’s appeal on technical grounds such as:

• The absence of a proper verification and certification on non-forum shopping and
• The failure to attach an affidavit of service as required by the Rules of Court.

• Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an appropriate remedy in place of the ordinary appeal process (i.e., Rule 45) given that the alleged errors were of a procedural, technical nature.

• Whether the factual findings of the SSC regarding Tinaytina’s periods of employment and the consequent liabilities imposed on petitioner (including the imposition of damages for misrepresentation) are subject to review in a petition for certiorari.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)