Title
Jacinto vs. Gumaru, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 191906
Decision Date
Jun 2, 2014
Labor case involving unpaid wages and damages; appeal failed due to bond lapse, judgment became final, levy on property lifted, case moot after full satisfaction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 191906)

Applicable Law

This case is governed by the provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Labor Code, and the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly concerning the requirements for verification and certification against forum shopping.

Factual Antecedents

On December 6, 2004, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) issued a decision favoring Edgardo Gumaru, Jr. against Joselito Ma. P. Jacinto and the F. Jacinto Group, Inc. for various labor claims, including separation pay and damages. The NLRC affirmed its ruling when the appeal by the petitioner was dismissed due to a failure to post a cash bond. This led to the decision becoming final and executory. Subsequent attempts by the petitioner to contest the execution of the judgment were unsuccessful, which resulted in the levy of property for auction to satisfy the judgment.

Petitioner’s Attempts to Suspend Execution

The petitioner filed a motion to lift the levy on execution, asserting procedural errors regarding the validity of the execution process, claiming that the writ of execution had lapsed due to expiration. Nevertheless, the Labor Arbiter denied this motion, leading the case back to the NLRC, which later overturned the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The NLRC's actions involved remanding the case for proper execution, which the petitioner attempted to challenge one last time.

Assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals

Frustrated by the NLRC's resolutions, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari at the Court of Appeals, where he faced procedural hurdles due to the verification requirement being signed by his counsel rather than himself. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that the failure to adhere to the requirement of personal certification was sufficient grounds for denial.

Legal Arguments Submitted by the Petitioner

The petitioner argued that his counsel was authorized to sign the certification and that he was unable to execute the verification personally due to being abroad. He posited that the verification requirement is not strictly jurisdictional, and given the circumstances, substantial compliance had occurred. Furthermore, he contended that the dismissal by the Court of Appeals undermined his right to pursue remedies against the NLRC's alleged procedural errors.

Respondent’s Defense

The respondent countered that the petitioner's failure to comply with verification requirements rendered the petition invalid. The respondent also emphasized that, irrespective

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.