Case Digest (G.R. No. 149634)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 149634)
Facts:
Loreta Torres, Marilyn Tangtang, Armela Figuracion, Raquel Bernarte, Estrella Tito, Rhea Ellorda, Rosita Fuentes, Anita Laporre, Jocelyn Rin, Matodia Derepas, Felicisima Alegre, Lea Martillana, Evangeline Rafon, Alicia Empillo, Amy Torres, Edna Jimenez, Evelyn Dolom, Hamili Uyvico, Criselina Anquilo, Nilda Alcaide, Rosario Mabana, Estela Mangubat, Rosie Baldove, Carmelita Ruiz and Lucila Justares v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 149634, July 06, 2004, Supreme Court First Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are former workers who filed three separate complaints against Specialized Packaging Development Corporation (SPDC) and labor recruiters Eusebio Camacho General Services (ECGS) and MPL Services, alleging illegal dismissal and nonpayment of various labor benefits. The three cases were consolidated and assigned to Labor Arbiter (LA) Salimathar Nambi.
On June 30, 1995, LA Nambi issued a Decision in favor of petitioners because SPDC and MPL Services failed to submit position papers on time; he ordered reinstatement and payment of back wages and other benefits. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) set aside that Decision on appeal, remanding the matter to the LA. After further hearings and late submissions by respondents, LA Nambi on December 14, 1999 again ruled for petitioners, finding illegal termination; the NLRC again reversed and set aside that Decision on June 9, 2000.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) on January 29, 2001. The CA dismissed the petition by Resolution dated January 15, 2001 (and affirmed on August 28, 2001) on the ground that the petition's verification and the certificate against forum shopping were defective or insufficient: although there were 25 principal petitioners, only two signed the verification and certification. The CA held that all 25 should have personally signed or properly authorized signatories; it denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA Resolutions for dismissing their CA petition for defective verification and certification against forum shopping. The Supreme Court took up the matter and ultimately resolved the petition on July 6, 2004.
Issues:
- Is the petition properly before the Court under Rule 45 given that substantive issues were raised in petitioners’ memorandum but not in the petition itself?
- Was the CA correct in dismissing the petition for defective verification and for an insufficient certification against forum shopping where only two of twenty-five petitioners signed them?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)