G.R. No. 109491 - Atrium Management Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

Cesario F. Ermita, a regular employee working as a foreman for United Paragon Mining Corporation (UPMC), received a termination letter dated January 16, 1996, effective thirty days after receipt.
The termination was based on allegations that Cesario violated company rules by inflicting bodily injuries on a co-employee, Jerry Romero, and by unlawfully possessing a deadly weapon (a bolo).

Following the termination, Cesario’s case was brought before the grievance machinery as provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement between UPMC and the United Paragon Supervisors Union.
Unable to reach a settlement through grievance machinery, the parties agreed to submit the dispute to voluntary arbitration.
The complaint for illegal dismissal was referred to Voluntary Arbitrator Atty. Murly P. Mendez and docketed as VA Case No. RB5-657-04-002-96.

On February 28, 1997, Voluntary Arbitrator Mendez rendered a decision in favor of Cesario, finding that although procedural requirements had been complied with, Cesario’s termination was unjustified due to a gross misapprehension of facts.
The arbitrator noted that Cesario was terminated primarily because his explanation did not satisfy management rather than due to a definitive finding of culpability.
Evidence showed inconsistencies in management’s claims:

The allegation of an assault was supported only by the uncorroborated statement of Jerry Romero, which was disputed by Cesario’s own statement and corroborated by an amicable settlement signed by both parties.
The allegation regarding the use of the bolo was invalidated by findings that the bolo was used for chopping wood and that it was operated by Cesario’s son, not Cesario himself.

As a remedy, the arbitrator ordered Cesario’s reinstatement to his former position without loss of seniority or interruption of service, payment of back wages from February 17, 1996, and an award for attorney’s fees derived from 10% of the monetary award.

UPMC moved for a reconsideration of the arbitration order, proposing separation pay as an alternative to reinstatement.

The grounds for this motion included the fact that Cesario’s position had already been filled and that strained relations existed between Cesario and UPMC.

On April 22, 1997, the Voluntary Arbitrator denied the reconsideration, emphasizing that the termination stemmed from a misapprehension of facts, not from any strained relations.
Dissatisfied with the arbitration outcome, UPMC, through its Personnel Superintendent Feliciano M. Daniel, filed a petition for certiorari and a prayer for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 44450.

The petition for certiorari was not the proper remedy, as what was required was a petition for review on certiorari.
The verification was deemed ineffective and insufficient since it was signed by the Personnel Superintendent without showing he was authorized to do so on behalf of UPMC.
The petition inappropriately dwelled on the appreciation of facts rather than addressing issues of jurisdiction or legal error.

UPMC’s central argument rested on the assertion that its Personnel Superintendent had the authority to file the petition on behalf of the corporation because he was a co-respondent in Cesario’s illegal dismissal complaint.
However, the CA found that Daniel acted merely in his capacity as personnel officer and was not a real party-in-interest, lacking the requisite authority to bind the corporation without a board resolution.

Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition on the premise that a petition for certiorari was the improper remedy, instead of a petition for review on certiorari.
Whether the CA erred in finding the verification of the petition ineffective and insufficient due to the lack of an authoritative showing that Feliciano M. Daniel (Personnel Superintendent) was duly authorized to act on behalf of UPMC.
Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition because it allegedly dwelled on the appreciation of facts—a matter inappropriate for resolution in a petition for certiorari.