G.R. No. 188646 - Cordero vs. Board of Nursing

On December 6, 2004, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) rendered a Decision in NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-06-07542-03 in favor of respondent Edgardo Gumaru, Jr. against petitioner Joselito Ma. P. Jacinto and F. Jacinto Group, Inc.

The decision awarded respondent various monetary claims including separation pay (computed at two months per year over ten years), three months’ unpaid wages and allowances, unpaid service leave benefits, 13th month pay, moral damages, and exemplary damages, plus attorney’s fees at 10% of all sums due.
The award was to accrue legal interest at 12% per annum from the time the amounts were unlawfully withheld as of September 1, 2000.

Following this decision, petitioner and F. Jacinto Group, Inc. filed an appeal with the NLRC; however, the appeal was not perfected because of the failure to post the required cash or surety bond, leading to a dismissal in the NLRC Resolution dated September 30, 2005.

Consequently, the December 6, 2004 Decision became final and executory, with entry of judgment issued on November 23, 2005.

On February 6, 2006, a Writ of Execution was issued in the labor case, followed by the issuance of a Second Alias Writ of Execution when the first expired.
By virtue of the alias writ, real property owned by petitioner in Baguio City (covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-2010) was levied and scheduled for auction on either June 27, 2008, or July 4, 2008.

On June 20, 2008, petitioner filed an Extremely Urgent Motion to Lift and Annul the Levy on Execution, seeking to restrain the scheduled auction and to invalidate the execution process under the Second Alias Writ of Execution.
On June 26, 2008, the Labor Arbiter issued an Order denying the motion, holding that the writ of execution, issued on September 7, 2007, had not yet elapsed within its five-year life as prescribed by the Revised Rules of Court (per the precedent set in Merlinda Dagooc v. Roberto Endina).

In response to the Labor Arbiter’s decision, respondents filed a motion which led to a November 28, 2008 NLRC Resolution setting aside the Arbiter’s order and remanding the case for proper execution proceedings.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration before the NLRC, which was denied in a July 27, 2009 Resolution.

Petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) through a Petition for Review on Certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 111098) to assail the November 28, 2008 and July 27, 2009 NLRC Resolutions.

The petition was filed with a Verification and Certification against forum shopping that was executed and signed by petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Ronald Mark S. Daos, instead of the petitioner himself, in violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court and Supreme Court Revised Circular No. 28-91.

On November 5, 2009, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the petition on the grounds of improper execution of the verification and certification, holding that such duties should be performed by the petitioner.
Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that:

A verification signed by counsel constitutes substantial compliance under the rules, particularly when the petitioner was abroad and physically unable to attend the required consular office.
The affidavit submitted later, which indicated that the petitioner personally read and approved the contents of the petition, should cure the defect.

On March 24, 2010, the CA issued a second Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration, reiterating that a writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy issued at the court’s discretion and not as a matter of right.

In a May 24, 2011 Manifestation, respondent informed the Court that the judgment award had been fully satisfied.
With the complete satisfaction of the judgment, the labor case was deemed terminated, rendering the petition moot and academic.

Whether a party who is unable to sign the required Verification and Certification against forum shopping may lawfully authorize his counsel to execute these documents on his behalf.

Does the delegation of signature via a Special Power of Attorney constitute substantial compliance with the verification requirement?
Is the verification merely a formal requirement that does not affect the jurisdiction unless it is fatal to the pleading?

Whether, given the procedural deficiencies and alleged irregularities concerning the service of resolutions in the NLRC proceedings, the Court of Appeals should have given due course to the petition.

Whether the lack of proper service of the NLRC Resolution affecting the appeal impacts the finality and execution of the labor case decision.
If execution proceedings should have been entertained when the underlying decision had not attained finality or juridical existence.

Whether the petition for review on certiorari is maintainable given that the judgment award has been fully satisfied.

With full satisfaction of the judgment, does the underlying case fall beyond the ambit of judicial review?
Is the petition rendered moot and academic in light of the complete discharge of the debtor’s obligations?