G.R. No. 142314 - MC Engineering, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

MC Engineering, Inc. (MCEI) and Hanil Development Corp., Ltd. (Hanil) are the petitioners in the case.
Hanil, an overseas employer, deploys contract workers through MCEI under a Service Contract Agreement.
Contract workers are employed by MCEI on terms and conditions set by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) regulations and the Service Contract Agreement.

Private respondent Aristotle Baldameca entered into an Employment Agreement on September 18, 1992, with MCEI.
He was deployed as a plumber in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia and commenced work on September 21, 1992.
The employment contract was for a term of twelve (12) months, but Baldameca was repatriated on January 19, 1993 before its completion.

On October 19, 1993, Baldameca filed a complaint with the POEA alleging illegal dismissal.
In his complaint, he sought payment for the unexpired portion of his employment contract and reimbursement of his airfare.

In March 1996, the complaint was referred to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Arbitration Division under Republic Act 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995).
After submission of positions by the parties, the labor arbiter rendered a decision on April 27, 1998, holding MCEI and Hanil jointly and severally liable in the amount of US$2,500.00, plus 10% of the cash award as attorney’s fees.
Petitioners appealed the decision to the NLRC on June 15, 1998, but the appeal was dismissed in a Resolution dated February 26, 1999.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied on September 28, 1999.

On December 17, 1999, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging the NLRC decisions.
The Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated December 27, 1999, dismissed the petition due to:

Non-compliance with the certification of non-forum shopping requirement.
Lack of a written explanation for not personally serving the petition (i.e., service by registered mail).

A Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners was denied in another Resolution dated March 3, 2000.
Petitioners raised, among other issues, whether the dismissal was proper due to their alleged technical non-compliance with the procedural requirements.

Under Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a petitioner must submit a certification attesting to the non-commencement of any other action on the same issues.
In this case, the certification was executed only by MCEI’s corporate secretary, not by Hanil.

Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure mandates personal service of pleadings whenever practicable.
If another mode of service is undertaken, a written explanation is required.
Petitioners’ petition lacked any explanation despite being served by registered mail, although an affidavit of service was attached.

Whether a certification of non-forum shopping signed only by petitioner MCEI (and not by petitioner Hanil) constitutes substantial compliance with Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whether the fact that Hanil, being sued in its capacity as the foreign principal, did not sign the certification compromises the compliance requirement.

Whether the absence of a written explanation for resorting to service by registered mail (instead of personal service) violates Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whether the attached affidavit of service, which merely attests to proper delivery by registered mail, can be considered as substantial compliance with the rule.

Whether technical lapses, such as failing to provide the required explanation, can be condoned under the doctrine of substantial compliance.
Whether the principle established in cases like Alonso vs. Villamor applies in light of the strict and mandatory nature of the rules.