G.R. No. 232989 - Jorge vs. Marcelo

Case Summary (G.R. No. 232989)

Factual Background

Private respondents filed claims for illegal dismissal, non-payment of service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay, separation pay, damages, and attorney’s fees against R. Jorgensons Swine Multiplier Corporation and Romeo J. Jorge. On August 31, 2010, Labor Arbiter Generoso V. Santos dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint but awarded monetary relief, including separation pay, nominal damages of PHP 50,000 for each complainant, and attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent of the monetary award. Writs of execution were later issued commanding the sheriff to collect the monetary award and attorney’s fees.

Third Party Claim by Petitioner

On June 29, 2015, Rufina S. Jorge filed a Third Party Claim asserting sole ownership of the real property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-45328. She alleged that a Notice of Levy on Execution had been placed on the Property despite her being the sole registered owner and that the phrase “married to Romeo J. Jorge” on the title was merely descriptive of marital status. She further alleged irregularities in the notice of sale, lack of a sheriff’s return, absence of publication details, and inability to post a surety bond; she deposited PHP 20,000 for republication and paid the filing fee.

Opposition and Labor Arbiter Decision

Private respondents contested the Third Party Claim, asserting procedural noncompliance with Section 11, Rule XI of the NLRC Rules, specifically failure to file within five days of publication, failure to post a cash or surety bond equivalent to the claim or award, and failure to pay the filing fee. They also relied on the presumption of conjugal ownership during marriage. On June 16, 2016, Labor Arbiter Santos dismissed the Third Party Claim and authorized republication and auction, reasoning that registration in the name of one spouse did not rebut the presumption of conjugal ownership and citing the test in Dewara v. Lamela.

Petition for Extraordinary Remedies to the NLRC

Rufina S. Jorge filed a Petition for Extraordinary Remedies under Rule XII of the NLRC Rules, arguing that the Dewara holding did not apply because there was no proof the property was acquired during the marriage, that the burden to prove acquisition during marriage lay with private respondents, that her title was conclusive evidence of ownership under Salas, Jr. v. Aguila, and that she had not been a party to the underlying labor case and had been deprived of opportunity to be heard. On August 26, 2016, the NLRC denied the petition for lack of merit, finding the Third Party Claim procedurally defective for failure to submit the required cash or surety bond and for failing to address the defect until issuance of the Labor Arbiter’s order. Reconsideration was denied on November 21, 2016.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Dismissal

Rufina S. Jorge sought certiorari relief before the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed the petition on March 2, 2017 for procedural defects in the certiorari pleading: incomplete postal addresses in violation of Section 3(a), Rule 46 relative to Rule 65; a defective jurat for the Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping because of lack of competent proof of affiant’s identity; and an outdated PTR date for counsel in contravention of the Notarial law. A motion for reconsideration was denied on June 23, 2017, the CA holding that the petitioner failed to present competent evidence of identity to cure the jurat defect and that the petitioner’s declaration of being personally known to the notary did not satisfy the Notarial Rules absent proof of identity or explanation.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The principal issues before the Supreme Court were (a) whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on procedural notarial defects when the notarial certificate declared the affiant personally known to the notary, and (b) whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the Third Party Claim outright for failure to post a cash or surety bond, given amendments to Section 14, Rule XI of the NLRC Rules.

Petitioner’s Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Rufina S. Jorge argued that Section 12 of the Notarial Rules only defines competent evidence of identity and does not require its presentation in all jurats when the signatory is personally known to the notary under Sections 2 and 6. She contended that she should not be required to explain the notary public’s declaration of personal knowledge and that the failure to indicate details of competent evidence of identity on the notarized document is a defect of the notary public, not of the affiant, and should not be fatal to her petition.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition. It held that the CA incorrectly dismissed the petition for certiorari on the basis of the jurat defect and that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the Third Party Claim outright for failure to post a bond. The Court reversed and set aside the March 2, 2017 and June 23, 2017 resolutions of the CA and the August 26, 2016 and November 21, 2016 resolutions of the NLRC. The Court remanded the case to the NLRC to determine with reasonable dispatch the ownership of the real property covered by TCT No. N-45328 and to require private respondents to present proof of when the property was acquired.

Legal Reasoning on Notarial Requirements

The Court interpreted the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice to permit a jurat where the signatory is personally known to the notary without presentation of documentary competent evidence of identity. It relied on precedents allowing excusal of documentary identification where the notary personally knows the affiant, including Jandoquile v. Atty. Revilla, Jr. and Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Dela Cruz, and on the principle that a mere omission of details regarding competent evidence in the notarial certificate may be excused in the interest of substantial justice. The Court emphasized that the jurat must contain a statement that the affiant is personally known to the notary, and that personal knowledge contemplates the notary’s firsthand awareness of the affiant’s identity and circumstances, which may eliminate the need for documentary verification.

Legal Reasoning on NLRC Procedural Amendments and Third Party Claims

The Court examined the evolution of Section 14, Rule XI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure and its amendment by NLRC En Banc Resolution No. 14-15 dated September 16, 2015. The Court concluded that the 2015 amendments, which governed Rufina’s pending Third Party Claim, removed the mandatory posting of a cash or surety bond as a precondition to filing and i

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 232989)

Parties and Posture

Rufina S. Jorge filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari after the Court of Appeals affirmed NLRC resolutions denying her Petition for Extraordinary Remedies under Rule XII of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended.
The respondents include the private claimants Alberto C. Marcelo, Joel San Pascual, Romeo Salen, Celso Santos, Higino Dalangin, Jr., Eduardo A. Garcia, Julius Fronda, Rogelio Vergara, Larry P. Torres, Rodel L. Zamora, Alexander F. Suerte, Edisio G. Casebo, Fernando Enorme, Noel Almazan, Regino Cruz, Ronald Allam, Lolito Dizon, Ceceron S. Pena, Jr., Renato M. Zonio, Roberto F. Ayuson, Cristosi S. Albor, Roger Tiburcio and the National Labor Relations Commission (Third Division).
An Executive Labor Arbiter issued a Decision dated August 31, 2010 in favor of the private respondents ordering payment of separation pay, nominal damages of PHP 50,000 per complainant, and attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent of the monetary award.
A Writ of Execution and an Alias Writ of Execution were issued on May 2, 2011 and February 5, 2015, respectively, commanding collection of P2,513,820.77 and P251,382.07.
Rufina filed a Third Party Claim on June 29, 2015 asserting sole ownership of the property covered by TCT No. N-45328 and seeking cancellation of the levy and suspension of execution.
The Labor Arbiter ordered dismissal of the Third Party Claim on June 16, 2016 and directed republication and auction, and the NLRC denied Rufina’s Petition for Extraordinary Remedies on August 26, 2016 and November 21, 2016.
The Court of Appeals dismissed Rufina’s petition for certiorari on March 2, 2017 and denied reconsideration on June 23, 2017, and the Supreme Court granted Rufina’s petition and remanded the case to the NLRC.

Key Facts

Rufina S. Jorge was the registered owner of the real property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-45328 and the title contained the phrase “married to Romeo J. Jorge” after her name.
A Notice of Levy on Execution was placed on the title and a “Notice of Sale/Levy on Execution of Real Property” in the file lacked the date of the execution sale and the publication details.
Rufina asserted that she lacked sufficient liquidity to post a cash bond and encountered difficulty obtaining a surety bond, and she deposited PHP 20,000 for republication of the auction notice when she filed the Third Party Claim.
The sheriff proceeded with execution proceedings and the subject property was sold at public auction on November 3, 2016 in favor of the private respondents.
The Third Party Claim did not include a surety or cash bond at the time of filing and it was challenged by private respondents as procedurally deficient.

Issues Presented

Whether the CA correctly dismissed Rufina’s petition for certiorari on the ground of notarial and procedural defects in the petition.
Whether the NLRC properly dismissed the Third Party Claim for failure to post a cash or surety bond and for alleged noncompliance with the NLRC Rules.
Whether the phrase “married to Romeo J. Jorge” on TCT No. N-45328 establishes conjugal ownership of the property or precludes Rufina’s claim of sole ownership.
Whether the NLRC and CA committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Rufina’s Petition for Extraordinary Remedies and in failing to rule on the substantive ownership issue.

Contentions of the Parties

Rufina S. Jorge contended that the Notarial Rules permit an affirmation or jurat without documentary competent evidence of identity when the signatory is personally known to the notary public and that the jurat in her verification stated she was personally known to the notary.
Rufina fur