Case Summary (G.R. No. 146267)
Factual Background
Petitioner corporation employed respondent Virginia M. Publico as a sewer on February 8, 1995 on a piece-rate basis with required hours from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 midnight and an average daily earning of P185.00. On the night of May 7, 1997, respondent requested to leave early because of influenza; management allegedly refused but she left nonetheless. She notified management the following day of continued illness and reported for work on May 9, 1997, only to be initially prevented from entering the premises by security allegedly on management's order. After asserting she would finish unfinished work from May 7, she was admitted but was denied a meeting with owner Stephen Ng and asked to return the next day. On May 10, 1997, after waiting three and half (312) hours to see Stephen Ng, respondent was told she was dismissed for refusal to render overtime service.
Labor Arbiter Proceedings
Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against NYK International Knitwear Corporation Philippines and Cathy Ng, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-06-03925-97. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal illegal and on March 19, 1998 ordered reinstatement with full backwages from the date salary was withheld until actual reinstatement, quantified as P50,168.30, and assessed attorneys' fees of P5,016.83, while dismissing the rest of the claims for lack of merit.
NLRC Proceedings
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision in toto by resolution dated May 17, 2000. The NLRC agreed with the Labor Arbiter's factual findings and legal conclusion that respondent had been unlawfully dismissed.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
Petitioners sought relief by filing a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 60542, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on September 15, 2000 for failure to comply with Section 1, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically for submitting only a photocopy stamped as a certified true copy rather than an authenticated original certified true copy and for failing to attach pleadings and documents pertinent to the petition. A motion for reconsideration accompanied by receipts and additional copies was denied on December 5, 2000.
Issues Presented
Petitioners framed three issues: whether the Court of Appeals should have given due course to the petition for certiorari; whether the record supported the finding of illegal dismissal and the attendant award of backwages and reinstatement; and whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion warranting reversal. The Court narrowed the dispute to two issues for resolution: procedural compliance with Section 1, Rule 65 and the substantive contention whether the NLRC's factual finding of illegal dismissal was erroneous.
Parties' Contentions
Petitioners argued substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 1, Rule 65 and that exigent practical circumstances justified accepting the photocopied "certified true copy"; they also contended that respondent's refusal to render night work constituted abandonment and justified termination, and that neither malice nor bad faith existed to render them jointly liable. Respondent maintained that petitioners willfully disregarded the Rules and that the petition raised factual issues unsuited to resolution in a certiorari action.
Supreme Court's Analysis on Procedural Compliance
The Court examined Section 1, Rule 65 together with Administrative Circular No. 3-96, which requires that the petition be accompanied by a certified true copy that is an authenticated original of such certified true copy and not a mere xerox copy. Applying those standards, the Court found that the document attached by petitioners, although stamped "CERT. TRUE COPY," was not the authenticated original certified true copy but a photocopy. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of Administrative Circular No. 3-96, which mandates rejection of noncomplying annexes and dismissal of the petition absent compelling justification attributable to reasons beyond the party's control. Petitioners did not demonstrate such compelling circumstances or due diligence to relax the requirement for strict compliance. The Court reiterated that a writ of certiorari is discretionary and must be sought strictly in accordance with law and rule.
Supreme Court's Analysis on Merits
Notwithstanding the procedural dismissal, the Court proceeded to address the substantive contention to avoid further delay. It held that petitioners' arguments primarily raised factual questions—whether respondent abandoned her duties by refusing night work—that are improper to decide in a petition for certiorari. The Court reaffirmed the principle that factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, when affirmed by the NLRC, are binding and conclusive upon the Court when supported by evidence, citing Permex, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission and other precedents. Finding no arbitrariness or unfairness in the deduction from evidence, the Court found no reversible error in the NLRC's conclusion that respondent was unlawfully dismissed.
Corporate Officer Liability
The Court addressed petitioners' contention that manager Cathy Ng should not be held jointly liable. Relying on A.C. Ransom Labor Union-CCLU v. NLRC and subsequent jurisprudence, the Court held that a corporation is an artificial person and must have a natural person acting in its interest who may be presumed to be the employer. Under Art. 212(e), Labor Code, an employer includes any person acting in the interest of an employer. Accordingly, Cathy Ng, as manager and responsible officer of NYK International Knitwear Corporation Philippines, fell within the statutory meaning of employer and could not be exonerated from joint and several liability for reinstatement and monetary awards.
Ruling and Disposition
The Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the Court of Appeals' resolutions dated September 15, 2000 and December 5, 2000. Costs were imposed on petitioners. The effect of the decision is to leave intact the Labor Arbiter's and NLRC's orde
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 146267)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- NYK INTERNATIONAL KNITWEAR CORPORATION PHILIPPINES and Cathy Ng filed a petition for review on certiorari from the Court of Appeals' dismissal of their special civil action.
- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and Virginia M. Publico were the respondents in the petition for certiorari and the prior administrative proceedings.
- The petition assailed the Court of Appeals' resolutions of September 15, 2000 and December 5, 2000 which dismissed CA-G.R. SP No. 60542 for non-compliance with Section 1, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
- The underlying administrative decisions were those of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, which had found in favor of Virginia M. Publico.
Key Factual Allegations
- Virginia M. Publico was hired by NYK on February 8, 1995 as a sewer and was paid on a piece-rate basis with required hours from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 midnight and average daily earnings of P185.00.
- On May 7, 1997 Publico requested to leave early at about 10:00 P.M. because she was ill, and permission was refused, but she nevertheless went home.
- Publico notified management the next day that she was still ill and on May 9, 1997 a security guard prevented her from entering the premises allegedly on management's order until she agreed to finish unfinished work.
- Publico asked to see owner Stephen Ng and was told to return the following day, and on May 10, 1997 after waiting three and a half hours she was informed by Stephen Ng that she was dismissed for refusing to render overtime service.
- Petitioners maintained that Publico's husband disallowed night work and that Publico's refusal to render night service justified her dismissal.
Procedural History
- The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment on March 19, 1998 ordering reinstatement with full backwages and awarding attorney's fees, with the monetary backwages totaling P50,168.30 and attorney's fees of P5,016.83.
- The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision in a resolution dated May 17, 2000.
- Petitioners filed CA-G.R. SP No. 60542 before the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition on September 15, 2000 for failing to annex a certified true copy and other pertinent pleadings as required by Section 1, Rule 65.
- The Court of Appeals denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration on December 5, 2000, prompting the present petition for review on certiorari.
Issues Presented
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for technical non-compliance with documentary requirements of Section 1, Rule 65.
- Whether there was evidence to support the finding that Virginia M. Publico was illegally dismissed and whether reinstatement with backwages was warranted.
- Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the La