Facts:

The case involves Arnold F. Anib as the petitioner and Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. and/or Rhogie Feliciano as the respondents. Anib was employed by Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. as a helper starting March 3, 1993, and later became the supervisor of a mini warehouse located on Ayala St., Makati City. On March 20, 2005, a national inventory of the warehouse was conducted, which matched the figures in the Daily Stock Situation Report (DSSR) prepared by Anib. However, on April 23, 2005, the warehouse was padlocked due to the company's failure to pay rent, with the DSSR indicating 1,455 cases remaining in the warehouse. The warehouse was reopened on May 17, 2005, after the rental obligations were settled. A subsequent spot count revealed a stock shortage valued at P361,061.00. Anib was notified of this shortage on May 24, 2005, and was asked to explain the discrepancy. He requested additional time to respond due to his wife's illness. A re-inventory later i...

Facts:

Background and Employment

• Petitioner Arnold F. Anib was initially employed as a helper by respondent, Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI).
• He was later assigned to supervise CCBPI’s mini warehouse located on Ayala Street, Makati City.

Inventory and Warehouse Events

• On March 20, 2005, a national inventory was conducted in the mini warehouse where the results tallied with the Daily Stock Situation Report (DSSR) prepared by petitioner.
• On April 23, 2005, the warehouse was padlocked by the owner due to CCBPI’s failure to pay rental fees.

- The DSSR for that day recorded that 1,455 cases remained in the warehouse. - On May 17, 2005, after CCBPI settled its rental obligations, the warehouse was reopened. - A spot count, conducted by petitioner along with Rollie Latosa (Logistics Coordinator), a third-party logistics service provider representative, and the assigned salesman, revealed a stock shortage valued at ₱361,061.00. - A subsequent re-inventory indicated a shortage of 1,412 cases, amounting to ₱404,807.00.

Investigation and Alleged Improprieties

• On May 24, 2005, petitioner was formally notified in writing of the shortage and was asked to explain why he should not face charges for violating the Code of Disciplinary Rules and Regulations.

- Petitioner requested additional time to provide an explanation, citing his wife’s sickness. - He was unaware of how the shortage occurred. - He claimed to have merely adopted the beginning inventory and received the deliveries processed through the third-party logistics provider. - He expressed uncertainty whether the stocks recorded in the April 23 DSSR had actually entered the warehouse. - Stocks were reportedly withdrawn from the warehouse and delivered to other outlets during the period the warehouse was padlocked. - Petitioner allegedly issued a receipt for an amount less than what was actually paid by an outlet and diverted the overpayment to offset other shortages.

Laboratory Dismissal Proceedings and Subsequent Appeals

• Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against CCBPI.

- On March 31, 2008, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision sustaining petitioner’s dismissal but ordered payment of separation pay computed at a half month’s salary for every year of service. - Other claims were dismissed due to lack of merit. - On September 22, 2008, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, ruling that petitioner’s dismissal was illegal. - The NLRC determined that the shortage in stocks could have been resolved through proper account reconciliation and by investigating all persons involved, not solely petitioner. - The investigation was criticized as an attempt to single out petitioner rather than to ascertain the truth. - The NLRC ordered CCBPI to pay petitioner: - Claims for damages and other monetary relief were dismissed for lack of merit.

Court of Appeals (CA) Proceedings and Compliance

• Petitioner sought review by filing a petition for certiorari with the CA.

- On March 18, 2009, the CA dismissed the petition on a technical basis for non-compliance with Section 1 of Rule 65, Rules of Civil Procedure, noting that petitioner only submitted a photocopy of the NLRC Resolution. - The CA noted that petitioner filed the petition without paying the mandated docketing and legal fees. - Petitioner’s submitted documents indicated he was indigent, yet he did not explicitly plead to litigate as a pauper. - The decision to allow glaucoma as a pauper litigant was left to the Court’s discretion upon proper compliance. - Petitioner later submitted his Compliance with the CA, asserting that the attached NLRC decision was a “certified photocopy” by Angelito V. Vives, NLRC Board Secretary IV. - To support his claim of indigency, petitioner attached: - The CA, in a Minute Resolution dated April 29, 2009, merely noted the compliance while reaffirming the petition’s dismissal.

Grounds for Petitioner’s Petition for Review

• Petitioner ascribed two main errors to the CA:

- Denial of free access to the courts for a pauper litigant. - The CA’s reliance on a technicality (i.e., failure to attach a certified true copy of the NLRC Decision) rather than addressing the substantive error in awarding separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. - Argued that petitioner committed forum shopping by failing to inform the Court of a pending similar petition for review filed by respondent (CA G.R. SP No. 108476). - The respondent requested dismissal on grounds of forum shopping.

Supreme Court’s Intervention and Final Proceedings

• The Supreme Court noted that:

- Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court, a principal party is obliged to inform the court of any same or similar action within five days from filing. - In Rudecon Management Corp. v. Singson, the Court clarified the scope of “same or similar action,” which did not apply in this instance as the pending petition by respondent did not involve identical causes of action, issues, and reliefs. - The dismissal by the CA was based on a technicality, which should not preclude a review on the merits of the illegal dismissal case. - Technical application of procedural rules may be relaxed, especially in labor cases where the substance of justice and equity must prevail. - The Supreme Court granted petitioner’s petition for review in part, setting aside both the CA Resolution dated March 18, 2009, and the Minute Resolution dated April 29, 2009. - The case was remanded to the CA for further proceedings, with specific instructions to initially resolve whether petitioner may litigate as an indigent based on his submitted supporting documents.

Issue:

Whether the CA erred in dismissing petitioner’s petition for certiorari on a technical defect, specifically for not attaching a certified true copy of the NLRC Decision, despite petitioner’s submission that purportedly contained a certified photocopy.

• Consideration of whether such technical non-compliance should override the substantial merits of the underlying illegal dismissal case.

Whether petitioner’s failure to notify the Court of a pending petition for review filed by respondent (alleged forum shopping) is a ground for dismissal.

• Analysis of whether the pending petition involved the same or similar causes of action, issues, and reliefs as those in petitioner’s case.

• Whether the investigation conducted by the employer and the disciplinary proceedings, which culminated in petitioner’s termination and subsequent irregularities in handling stock discrepancies, justify the dismissal or if they warrant a review in light of procedural and substantive errors.

Whether the CA, by dismissing the petition on technical grounds, was effectively denying petitioner, an indigent litigant, free access to the courts.

• Examination of the procedural requirements and the relaxation of strict technicalities in labor disputes.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)