The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of a petition filed by former Pepsi Cola employees seeking reinstatement and back wages. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition due to the petitioners' failure to comply with procedural requirements to have the certification against forum shopping personally signed by the petitioners and to indicate material dates. The Supreme Court agreed the procedural deficiencies were proper grounds for dismissal, noting the rules require the petitioners themselves to sign the certification and that all essential dates must be stated in the petition.
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of a petition filed by former Pepsi Cola employees seeking reinstatement and back wages. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition due to the petitioners' failure to comply with procedural requirements to have the certification against forum shopping personally signed by the petitioners and to indicate material dates. The Supreme Court agreed the procedural deficiencies were proper grounds for dismissal, noting the rules require the petitioners themselves to sign the certification and that all essential dates must be stated in the petition.
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of a petition filed by former Pepsi Cola employees seeking reinstatement and back wages. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition due to the petitioners' failure to comply with procedural requirements to have the certification against forum shopping personally signed by the petitioners and to indicate material dates. The Supreme Court agreed the procedural deficiencies were proper grounds for dismissal, noting the rules require the petitioners themselves to sign the certification and that all essential dates must be stated in the petition.
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of a petition filed by former Pepsi Cola employees seeking reinstatement and back wages. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition due to the petitioners' failure to comply with procedural requirements to have the certification against forum shopping personally signed by the petitioners and to indicate material dates. The Supreme Court agreed the procedural deficiencies were proper grounds for dismissal, noting the rules require the petitioners themselves to sign the certification and that all essential dates must be stated in the petition.
CA 083 GR No. 141947, 5 Jul 2001, Bellosillo, J. Digested by Dean Lozarie • Law 125 – Civil Procedure
Petitioners Ismael Santos, Alfredo Arce, and Hilario Pastrana, former employees of Pepsi Cola who were plaintiffs in the dismissal complaint below Respondents Pepsi Cola Products, defendants below What action below Complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement, backwages, and damages, filed with the Labor Arbiter
In a Rule 65 petition with the CA, Santos et al. did not personally sign the certification against forum shopping and failed to indicate the material dates required by the Rules. For this reason, the CA dismissed the action. The SC agreed with the CA.
FACTS • 1996 Apr 15: complaint with Labor Arbiter filed by Santos et al. • 1997 Jun 18: LA dismissed for lack of merit • 1999 Mar 5: NLRC affirmed • 1999 Sep 10: Santos et al. filed a special civil action for certiorari (Rule 65) with the CA. • CA dismissed action outright for failure to comply with requirements of §3 Rule 46, in relation to §1 Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (which failure was sufficient grounds to dismiss) o The verification and certification against forum shopping were executed merely by counsel and not by Santos et al. themselves. o The petition failed to specify the dates of receipt of the NLRC decision and of the filing of the MR • Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUES & HOLDING
• Was there a failure to comply with the procedural requirements? - YES. Hence, dismissal is proper.
RATIO • Insofar as verification is concerned, there is substantial compliance if the same is executed by an attorney because of the presumption that facts alleged by him are true to his knowledge and belief. • This rule does not apply to the certification against forum shopping. The Rule is clear that the certification must be made by petitioner himself and tot by counsel. • The reason: it is the petitioner who is in the best position to know whether s/he has previously commenced any similar action involving the same issues in any other tribunal or agency. • Santos et al. argue o Information regarding previously commenced actions may be divulged to an attorney o Anyway, they have executed an SPA in favor of their attorney specifically to sign the certification, which is allowed, per BA Savings Bank v. Sia o A dismissal on these grounds would defeat the administration of justice because the litigation concerns their well being and the future of their families. • SC HELD o In BA Savings Bank, the petitioner was a juridical person. That is an exception to the rule because juridical persons necessarily act through natural persons. o As noted by Pepsi Cola in its Comment, Santos et al. themselves signed the verification and certification requirements in all their previous pleadings o There is no justifiable reason for counsel to substitute Santos et al. in signing the petition. o Every petition filed before a court is sure to affect people’s well-being and families. This does not warrant disregarding the rules. • Three essential dates that must be stated in a Rule 65 petition o When notice of the judgment, final order, or Resolution was received o When a motion for new trial or reconsideration was filed o When notice of the denial of the MR was received • In this case, Santos et al. only indicated the date of the notice of the MR denial. • They argue that the body of their petition before the CA indicated the date they received notice that their MR was denied. • Still, they did not indicate when the MR itself was filed. For all the Court knows, the MR could have been filed beyond the 15-day allowable period.
