Title
Ramirez vs. Mar Fishing Co., Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 168208
Decision Date
Jun 13, 2012
Mar Fishing employees, dismissed after company closure, sued for illegal dismissal and unpaid separation pay. Supreme Court upheld procedural dismissal due to certification noncompliance, affirmed Mar Fishing’s sole liability, denied extended back wages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 197530)

Procedural Background

This case arises from a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeking the review of the resolutions from the Court of Appeals dated March 19, 2004, and May 12, 2005. The appellate court dismissed the petition for lack of Verification and Certification against forum shopping, which are both required under the Rules of Court for filing a petition for certiorari.

Facts of the Case

On June 28, 2001, Mar Fishing sold its principal assets to Miramar through public bidding to settle an outstanding obligation to the Trade and Investment Corporation of the Philippines totaling ₱897,560,041.26. Following the sale, Mar Fishing issued a memorandum on October 23, 2001, announcing its operational closure by the end of that month and notified the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) only two days prior to this closure on October 29, 2001. Subsequently, a Memorandum of Agreement was executed between the Mar Fishing Workers Union and Miramar, wherein Miramar agreed to absorb the workers of Mar Fishing who had satisfactory performance records. However, the petitioners, who were rank-and-file employees, were neither hired by Miramar nor compensated with separation pay.

Labor Arbiter's Decision

The Labor Arbiter found that Mar Fishing indeed closed its operations due to the sale and therefore legally dismissed the workers for authorized cause. Nonetheless, the Labor Arbiter held that the failure to notify DOLE within the legal timeframe did not render the dismissals void and ordered Mar Fishing to pay separation pay, totaling ₱6,336,587.77, while dismissing the case against Miramar and its officers for lack of cause of action.

National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Ruling

Upon the petitioners' appeal, the NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter's decision, determining that Mar Fishing’s delayed notification to DOLE invalidated the dismissals. The NLRC agreed that the two entities—Mar Fishing and Miramar—were one and the same for liability purposes, primarily due to commonality in directors and corporate structures. They ordered both entities to pay back wages in addition to the separation pay.

Subsequent Motions and Resolutions

Upon reconsideration, the NLRC restricted liability solely to Mar Fishing, arguing that in absence of a contractual assumption of obligations by Miramar, only the transferor remained liable for the labor contracts. The petitioners attempted to argue further before the Court of Appeals that both Mar Fishing and Miramar should be liable for their claims but were unsuccessful due to procedural noncompliance regarding the certification against forum shopping.

Court of Appeals' Dismissal

The Court of Appeals dismissed the case against the majority of the petitioners due to the lack of a complete Verification and Certification against forum shopping, allowing only the claims of three out of 228 petitioners through, which was non-substantive.

Supreme Court Analysis

Before the Supreme Court, it was contended whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for failing to comply with procedural requirements. The Court affirmed the CA's dismissal and reiterated that compliance with procedural requirements is not merely a technical matter as it ensures orderly administration of justice. The Supreme Court emphasized that it is not wit

...continue reading

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