G.R. No. 164940 - Varorient Shipping Co., Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Varorient Shipping Co., Inc. (Varorient) filed a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of two Court of Appeals resolutions dismissing its petition for certiorari, injunction, and motion for reconsideration.
The petition relates to a dispute arising from an employment relationship involving Filipino seafarer Rolando M. Perez.

Varorient, acting on behalf of its foreign principal Lagoa Shipping Corporation (Lagoa), employed Perez as an afittera on board the M/V Sparrow pursuant to a Contract of Employment dated 2 December 1998.
While deployed on board, Perez suffered persistent back pains, and despite a foreign doctor’s declaration that he was fit for continuing employment (albeit with light work only), his condition necessitated his repatriation to the Philippines.
After repatriation, Perez was diagnosed with lumbosacral instability caused by an injury from frequent heavy lifting.
Varorient arranged for Perez to undergo a physical therapy program at its expense; however, Perez discontinued treatment after completing 10 sessions.

On 9 September 1999, Perez filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) demanding disability benefits, illness allowance, reimbursement of medical expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees.
The initial Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of dismissal due to lack of merit on 20 January 2003, but the NLRC later reversed this decision on 30 October 2003 by holding that Perez complied with the necessary requirements in claiming compensation.
Varorient then filed a petition for certiorari and injunction with the Court of Appeals under Rule 65, which was dismissed on 25 May 2004 on the ground of defects in the verification and certification of non-forum shopping.

The petition was filed by three corporate entities – Varorient, Lagoa, and its President Margarita Colarina – yet the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was signed solely by Ma. Luisa C. Isuga, Varorient’s Corporate Secretary, without apparent authority for the other two petitioners.
Varorient later filed a motion for reconsideration accompanied by a Secretary’s Certificate dated 7 May 2004 to establish that Isuga was authorized to sign on its behalf; however, the Court of Appeals denied the motion on 9 August 2004, reiterating the necessity that each petitioner must execute a separate certification.

Varorient contended that there was substantial compliance with Section 3, Rule 46 by virtue of the belated submission of the Secretary’s Certificate.
The petitioner argued that strict application of technical rules should yield to the objectives of substantial justice, particularly in light of preexisting jurisprudence where belated compliance or joint filing with a local manning agent was deemed acceptable.

Whether Varorient has substantially complied with the verification and certification of non-forum shopping requirement despite the failure of Colarina and Lagoa to file separate certifications.
Whether the belated submission of a Secretary’s Certificate through a motion for reconsideration constitutes substantial compliance with the procedural requirements under the Rules of Court.

Whether the failure of Margarita Colarina, as a corporate officer, to execute a separate certification should justify the dismissal of the petition, given that her liability is solidary with that of Varorient and Lagoa under the POEA Rules.
How the doctrine of joint and solidary liability impacts the procedural requirements for certification in a case where multiple parties are sued under a common cause of action.

Whether a separate verification and certification of non-forum shopping is required for the foreign principal, Lagoa, or if the local manning agent’s certification on its behalf is sufficient.
The extent to which the relationship between a licensed local manning agency and its foreign principal affects the requirement for independent certification.