G.R. No. 230696 - Wenceslao vs. Makati Development Corp.

The case arose from a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal and Monetary Claims filed by former construction workers of Makati Development Corporation (MDC) before the Labor Arbiter.
Petitioners claimed that they were regular employees who were illegally dismissed for refusing transfer to work under another contractor, Asiapro Multi-Purpose Cooperative.
The Labor Arbiter determined that the petitioners were project employees and not regular employees, emphasizing that repeated re-employment does not convert a project employee into a regular employee.
Notwithstanding the dismissal of the illegal dismissal claim for lack of merit, the Labor Arbiter directed MDC to pay a computed 13th month pay to selected petitioners.

The Labor Arbiter’s Decision dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal and partially granted monetary relief in the form of 13th month pay for certain petitioners.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Fourth Division affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision in toto and denied the petitioners’ appeal for reconsideration.
The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision was also denied in a subsequent NLRC resolution.

The petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) by filing a Petition for Certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion and lack or excess of jurisdiction by the NLRC.
The petitioners failed to attach the certified true copies of the NLRC decision and resolution, as well as other pertinent documents (such as the labor arbiter’s decision, the Appeal Memorandum, and the Motion for Reconsideration).
The petition further lacked essential details, specifically the statement of material dates required under the Rules of Court.
The CA cited these defects—use of mere photocopies instead of certified true copies, incomplete allegation of material dates, and omission of other relevant records—as grounds for dismissing the petition.

After receiving the first dismissal, the petitioners filed motions for extension to file a petition for review on certiorari, which were granted as being in order.
Respondents (MDC and Dante Abando) filed motions for leave to file comment and to admit manifestation, which were duly considered.
The petitioners argued that the attachments they eventually submitted (certified true copies of the NLRC decision/resolution and additional documents) should have sufficed, contending that the CA should have allowed them to correct the technical omissions rather than dismissing the case outright.

Alleged that the dismissal by the CA was based on a mere technicality—non-submission of some material documents and incomplete statement of material dates.
Cited Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora to argue that not all pleadings and parts of the records need to be attached if the material allegations can be established by other available documents.
Asserted that a liberal construction of the procedural rules was warranted, and that the CA should have allowed supplemental submission of the missing documents.

Contended that the petitioners did not qualify for such liberality in light of their failure to comply with the strict requirements of the Rules of Court.
Emphasized that the absence of certified true copies of the NLRC decision/resolution and lack of the mandated statement of material dates were sufficient to justify dismissal.
Maintained that even if some documents were later attached, the petitioners remained non-compliant regarding the material dates, thereby precluding a proper adjudication on the merits.

Whether the CA was justified in dismissing the petition for certiorari due to the failure of the petitioners to attach the certified true copies of the NLRC decision and resolution and other pertinent documents.
Whether the omission of the statement of material dates (notification of the judgment, filing of the motion for new trial or reconsideration, and the notice of denial thereof) constitutes sufficient ground for dismissal under Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.

Whether, even if the petitioners eventually submitted some of the lacking documents, the petition on its face demonstrated a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by the NLRC.
Whether the petition should be treated as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 or as an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, especially when there exists an available plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.