Case Digest (G.R. No. 232989)
Facts:
Rufina S. Jorge v. Alberto C. Marcelo, et al., G.R. No. 232989, March 18, 2019, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.The underlying dispute began with illegal dismissal and related labor claims filed by private respondents (Alberto C. Marcelo and others) against R. Jorgensons Swine Multiplier Corporation and Romeo J. Jorge. On August 31, 2010, Labor Arbiter Generoso V. Santos rendered a Decision dismissing the illegal dismissal complaint but awarding separation pay, nominal damages (Php50,000 each), and attorney’s fees to the complainants. Writs of execution were issued (May 2, 2011 and Alias on February 5, 2015) to collect a monetary award of P2,513,820.77 plus attorney’s fees.
After the writs, Rufina S. Jorge (Rufina) filed a Third Party Claim on June 29, 2015, asserting she was the sole registered owner of the real property covered by TCT No. N-45328 and praying that the levy be lifted. She alleged the sheriff levied on the property because the title described her as “married to Romeo J. Jorge,” a losing party, and maintained the phrase was merely descriptive of marital status. Rufina explained she could not initially post a surety bond, instead depositing P20,000 for republication and filing the claim without a surety bond.
Private respondents moved to dismiss the Third Party Claim, asserting procedural defects under Section 11, Rule XI of the NLRC Rules: (1) the claim was not filed within five days from posting/publication; (2) it lacked a cash or surety bond equivalent to the claim/award; and (3) it lacked proof of filing fee payment. On June 16, 2016, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Rufina’s claim and ordered the sheriff to proceed with auction after republication, observing the title indicated acquisition during marriage and applying the presumption of conjugal ownership (citing Dewara v. Lamela).
Rufina filed a Petition for Extraordinary Remedies (Rule XII) with the NLRC; the NLRC denied the petition on August 26, 2016 for lack of merit and for failure to cure the procedural defects (particularly non-submission of bond), and denied reconsideration on November 21, 2016. The levied property was sold at public auction to private respondents on November 3, 2016.
Rufina then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition on March 2, 2017 on procedural grounds — defective pleading for incomplete postal addresses (Rule 46/Rule 65), a defective jurat/verification for failure to present competent evidence of identity, and an outdated PTR date for the verifying counsel. Reconsideration was denied on June 23, 2017; the CA held Rufina’s assertion that she was “personally known” to the notary public did not substitute for competent evidence of identity and that she failed to present proof of identity as required by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Rufina elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari (with urgent prayer for injunctive relief). She argued the Notarial Rules permit jurats where the signatory is personally known to the notary (so the CA should have decided the pet...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals properly dismiss Rufina’s petition for certiorari on procedural grounds for failure to present competent evidence of identity in the notarized Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping?
- Did the NLRC gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing Rufina’s Third Party Claim for failure to post a cash or surety bond?
- Does the annotation “married to Romeo J. Jorge” on TCT No. N-45328 create a presumption that the property is conjugal, and who bears the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)