Case Digest (G.R. No. 146267)
Facts:
NYK International Knitwear Corporation Philippines and/or Cathy Ng v. National Labor Relations Commission and Virginia M. Publico, G.R. No. 146267, February 17, 2003, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Virginia M. Publico was hired by NYK International Knitwear Corporation Philippines on February 8, 1995 as a sewer, paid on a piece-rate basis but required to work long hours (8:00 A.M. to 12:00 midnight), earning about P185.00 daily. On May 7, 1997 she asked to leave early because of influenza; management refused but she left. She notified the employer the next day that she was still ill and reported for work on May 9, 1997, only to be initially denied entry by the security guard and thereafter permitted in after she offered to complete unfinished work.
On May 10, 1997, after waiting several hours, Publico spoke with owner Stephen Ng, who informed her she was dismissed for refusing to render overtime service. Believing her dismissal illegal, Publico filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against NYK and its manager Cathy Ng, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-06-03925-97.
The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal illegal and, by decision dated March 19, 1998, ordered reinstatement with full backwages amounting to P50,168.30 and awarded attorneys’ fees equal to 10% (P5,016.83); other claims were dismissed. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), in a resolution dated May 17, 2000, affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision in toto.
Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 60542), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in a September 15, 2000 resolution for non-compliance with Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — petitioners had annexed a photocopy stamped “certified true copy” instead of the authenticated original certified true copy and failed to attach relevant pleadings and documents. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, which included official receipts and photocopies of the missing documents, was denied on December 5, 2000.
Petitioners then brought the present petition...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the petition for certiorari for non‑compliance with Section 1, Rule 65 (i.e., annexing a photocopied document stamped “certified true copy” instead of an authenticated original certified true copy)?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in refusing to review and reverse the NLRC’s factual finding that Publico was illegally dismissed and in the consequent awa...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)