G.R. No. 191699 - William Go Que Construction vs. Court of Appeals

Private respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal before the NLRC, alleging that they were regular employees hired as steelmen and were terminated without due process on June 3, 2006.
They also claimed non-payment of various monetary benefits such as service incentive leave pay, holiday pay, and 13th month pay.
Petitioner, William Go Que Construction and/or William Go Que, contended that the respondents were hired as project employees with clearly defined work periods and that their termination was due to their involvement in theft (cutting and selling unused steel bars).

Petitioner, after discovering the alleged theft, filed a complaint for theft against the private respondents and an additional individual, Jimmy Dulman, with the Office of the City Prosecutor, Quezon City.
The investigating prosecutor found probable cause, leading to the filing of an Information before the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City.

In an initial decision by the Labor Arbiter dated March 23, 2007, petitioner was found to have illegally dismissed the private respondents, declaring them regular employees entitled to reinstatement and backwages.
The Labor Arbiter rejected petitioner’s contention that the respondents were mere project employees or had abandoned their jobs without proper notice.
However, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the respondents’ monetary claims on the basis of insufficient factual underpinning.
Petitioner then appealed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, raising issues such as the inclusion of respondent Andales whose signature and identity were allegedly questionable.

In CA-G.R. SP No. 109427, the private respondents elevated the case on a petition for certiorari after the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling in its Decision dated December 8, 2008, which found that the respondents were validly dismissed due to theft and job abandonment, though awarding nominal damages for procedural due process violations.
The CA initially granted the motion despite identifying defects in the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping and the Affidavit of Service, directing the respondents to cure the defects within five days.
Respondents submitted supplemental documents, including photocopies of identification cards (IDs) for Singson, Pasaqui, and Lominiqui and a Joint Affidavit to account for Andales’s absence, arguing that these submissions cured the defects.
On resolutions dated November 12, 2009 and February 5, 2010, the CA held that the photocopies and the Joint Affidavit were competent evidence of identity and adequately cured the defect in verification and certification.
Later, developments included a settlement by Singson and Pasaqui with petitioner and their subsequent motion to withdraw, while Lominiqui and Andales remained unrepresented and in hiding, leading to their deemed waiver of submission of comments.

Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss the petition for certiorari on the ground that the Verification/Certification against Forum Shopping was defective.

The primary issue is the sufficiency and adequacy of the respondents’ compliance with the verification and certification requirements, particularly in light of alleged defects in the sworn verification and the jurat.
A subsidiary issue involves whether the photocopies of the respondents’ IDs and the Joint Affidavit qualify as competent evidence of identity under the applicable notarial rules.