Case Digest (G.R. No. 142248)
Facts:
Rebecca Gutierrez, G.R. No. 142248, December 16, 2004, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Gutierrez sought review of the Court of Appeals' resolutions of December 17, 1999 and February 21, 2000 which dismissed her petition for certiorari and denied her motion for reconsideration.Petitioner filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) on September 4, 1997 (POEA Case No. RV 97-09-0829) against Rempac Placement Agency (REMPAC) for alleged violations of Articles 32, 34(a),(b),(i) and 116 of the Labor Code, and impleaded Siddcor Insurance Corporation (SIDDCOR) as REMPAC’s surety. Petitioner alleged that while employed in Malaysia (departure June 17, 1995; return August 28, 1997) her employer deducted and withheld wages, and that deductions were made at REMPAC’s instruction. She claimed she paid small processing fees (later testifying to P3,000.00 and P1,500.00) but alleged aggregate salary deductions of P50,000.00 in her sworn statement.
REMPAC and SIDDCOR did not answer the POEA show cause order. By POEA Order of October 26, 1998, Administrator Reynaldo A. Regalado dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Petitioner appealed to the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), who affirmed the POEA by Order dated January 26, 1999; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by DOLE on July 27, 1999.
Petitioner then sought relief in the Court of Appeals. She filed a Special Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari, which the CA granted on November 11, 1999, giving her a non-extendible 15-day period after the lapse of the original reglementary period. Petitioner filed her petition for certiorari in the CA on October 26, 1999 (CA-G.R. S.P. No. 55585). The CA dismissed the petition by Resolution dated December 17, 1999 under Section 7, Rule 43 for procedural defects: incomplete statement of material dates, verification/certification against forum shopping signed by counsel rather than petitioner, absence of affidavit of service, and submission of photocopies instead of duplicate originals or certified true copies of the DOLE orders. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and submitted a supplemental motion attaching a personal verification and certification of non-forum shopping, a notarized affidavit of service, and certified true copies of the DOLE orders; nevertheless the CA denied reconsideration by Resolution of February 21, 2000 and merely noted the supplemental motion in a March 20, 2000 resolution.
Petitioner then filed a petition for revi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in dismissing petitioner’s petition for certiorari and in disregarding her motion for reconsideration?
- Do the grounds presented in petitioner’s motion for reconsideration warrant relaxation of procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice?
- Was there substantial compliance by petitioner with Section 3, Rule 46 and Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in not giving due course to the petition for certiorari despite its being impressed with merit?
- Is private respondent Rempac Placement Agency liable for violations of Articles 32, 34(a),(b),(i) and 116 of the Labor Code, as amended?
- Are the technical rules of evidence...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)