G.R. No. 187323 - Inter-Island Information Systems, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 11th Division

Inter-Island Information Systems, Inc., an internet service provider, hired Cham Q. Ibay on January 20, 2003, as a technical support personnel in its Network Operations Center.
Shortly into his employment, Ibay was initially included in a scheduled training (Memorandum No. 03-08-08 dated August 20, 2003) but was subsequently delisted in a revised memorandum (Memorandum No. 03-09-01 dated September 2, 2003). This delisting was explained as being due to the expiration of his contract, though no further clarification was provided by the Human Resource Department.
Two days after the training issue, Ibay was contacted telephonically by Scott Lam, who urged him to submit his resignation with an implied bargain—that doing so would secure a Certificate of Employment for future job applications—and threatened adverse consequences if he refused.

On October 3, 2003, Ibay was summoned by HR Manager Jesse Tan Ting to tender his resignation. When he refused, he was bluntly told, “Kung ayaw na namin sa inyo ay wala kayong magagawa.”
Later, on October 31, 2003, Ibay was prevented from entering the company premises, prompting him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.
While Inter-Island contended that Ibay had committed various infractions—including excessive use of company telephone and deterioration of work performance, even tendering a resignation on March 29, 2003, which the company did not accept—these assertions were challenged by Ibay’s subsequent legal actions.

The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on July 29, 2005, ordering the reinstatement of Ibay with full payment of his backwages amounting to P159,640.00, having found Ibay’s version of events to be more credible.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reaffirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on October 31, 2007, dismissing the company’s appeal and confirming that Ibay was illegally dismissed. The NLRC held that Ibay’s filing of the complaint and his consistent conduct dispelled the notion of mere job abandonment.
The case then advanced to the Court of Appeals (CA), where procedural issues arose regarding the petition’s non-compliance with a directive. On June 27, 2008, the CA ordered petitioner Inter-Island to furnish the complete addresses of Ibay and his counsel. The petitioner’s failure to comply led to the issuance of the September 12, 2008 and subsequently the February 6, 2009 CA resolutions dismissing the petition for certiorari.

The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 challenging the CA resolutions but failed to furnish the complete and current addresses as required.
Efforts to update respondent Ibay’s counsel’s information were marked by repeated non-compliance. Notice and compliance issues continued for years, including resolutions for failure to provide the updated address of Atty. David D. Erro, respondent’s counsel, and subsequent sanctions imposed for non-compliance.
Additional motions and comments by respondent’s counsel and further directives by the Court compounded the procedural challenges, extending the case’s pendency over an 11-year period since the original petition filing.

Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the petition for certiorari due to petitioner’s failure to furnish the complete and current address of both respondent Ibay and his counsel, as required by the CA’s June 27, 2008 resolution.
Whether the petitioner availed the wrong remedy by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, given that a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy existed.
Whether the evidence supports Ibay’s claim that he was illegally dismissed rather than having abandoned his work, especially in light of his prompt filing of a complaint following his exclusion from the company premises.
Whether the repeated failure of respondent Ibay and his counsel to update their addresses and comply with the Court’s directives justifies the imposition of fines and the dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal.