TOPIC Review And Correction Of Trial Court Errors; Extraordinary remedies; Cetiorari

CASE NO. G.R. No. 14018

DOCTRINE
1. Section 3 of Rule 46 provides that there are 3 material dates that must be stated in a petition
for certiorari brought under Rule 65:
a. when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received,
b. when an MNT or MR when one such was filed, and
c. when notice of the denial thereof was received.
⁃ This requirement is for the purpose of determining the timeliness of the petition, since the perfection
of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is jurisdictional and failure
to perfect an appeal as required by law renders the judgment final and executory.
⁃ The same rule requires the pleader to submit a CNFS to be executed by the plaintiff/principal party
2. General Rule: these requirements are mandatory, meaning, non-compliance therewith is a sufficient ground
for the dismissal of the petition.
Exception: If the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always
within the Court’s power to suspend the rules or except a particular case from its operation.
⁃ In this case, the CA aptly found compelling reasons to disregard respondents' procedural lapses in
order to obviate a patent injustice.
⁃ Time and again we have ruled that in illegal dismissal cases like the present one, the onus of proving
that the employee was not dismissed or if dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal, rests on the
employer and failure to discharge the same would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore
illegal.

RECIT-READY DIGEST
Former employees of Ferry Casinos hired through Great Southern filed an illegal dismissal with POEA case
against the Petitioners (Ferry Casinos, Great Southern, et al).
⁃ POEA ruled in favor of the respondents on the premise that the alleged resignation letters were not
voluntary letters of resignation, but merely letters of quitclaim and release.
⁃ NLRC, on appeal of the employer, set aside the POEA decision and dismissed the illegal dismissal
complaint.
⁃ Respondents (former employees) filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, which set aside the
NLRC decision and reinstated the POEA decision in favor of the employees
The Petitioners (Employers) are now claiming that the petition should have been dismissed for
(a) failure of respondents to submit a verified statement of the material dates to show that the petition was
filed on time, and
(b) the certification on non-forum shopping was signed only by their counsel. In addition, petitioners argued
that the issues raised are factual and there is no showing that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion
SC said NO, setting aside technical rules (since the employees filed their MR to NLRC belatedly, but NLRC still
decided on it) and decided that the employees were indeed illegally dismissed.
See Doctrine for ruling and rationale. ☺

1
FACTS
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45) assailing CA Decision which set aside the NLRC
Decision.
The factual background of the case is as follows:
• Petitioner Great Southern Maritime Services Corporation (Great Southern) is a manning agency
organized and existing under PH laws.
o It is the local agent of petitioner Ferry Casinos Limited.
o Petitioner Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp. is the surety company of petitioner Great Southern
• Respondents Acuna et al filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioners before the POEA, claim
that:
o between the months of March and April 1993, they were deployed by Great Southern to work as
croupiers (card dealers) for petitioner Ferry Casinos Limited under a 6-month contract. All of
them, except Jennifer Anne Acuna has the same monthly salary, overtime pay, and vacation leave
pay
o Sue Smits, the Casino Manager, informed them that their services were no longer needed;
considering that their plane tickets were already ready and they were subjected to harassment,
they had no alternative but to sign documents specifying that they were the ones who terminated
their employment; they were repatriated to the Philippines.
• Petitioners denied the allegations of respondents and averred that they voluntarily resigned from
employment.
o They contend that: respondents were hired by petitioner Ferry Casinos Limited through Great
Southern to work as croupiers for 6 months;
o sometime in July 1993, respondents intimated their desire to resign;
o Ferry Casinos Limited did not allow them to resign as the simultaneous loss of croupiers would
paralyze casino operations; respondents thereafter exhibited lukewarm attitude towards work,
became defiant and rude; consequently, petitioner Ferry Casinos Limited was forced to accede to
respondents' demands; and respondents executed resignation letters and disembarked
• The POEA decided the case against petitioners for illegal dismissal, holding the petitioners solidarily
liable to pay the respondents their salaries for the unexpired portion of their contract.
o It ruled that petitioners failed to prove that respondents' voluntarily resigned from employment.
It held that the alleged resignation letters are only declarations of release and quitclaim.
• Petitioners appealed to the NLRC which set aside the POEA decision and dismissed the complaint
for illegal dismissal. 7
o NLRC held that the contested letters are not only declarations of release and quitclaim but
resignations as well, and there is no concrete evidence of undue pressure, force and duress in the
execution of the resignation letters.
o The NLRC gave credence to petitioners' claim that respondents pre-terminated their contracts en
masse because 2 of the respondents, Haydee Anne B. Acuña and Marites T. Clarion, are now
working in Singapore.
o Respondents filed MR but the NLRC denied
• Respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the SC
o Petitioners, in their Comment, prayed for outright dismissal of the petition for:
(a) failure of respondents to submit a verified statement of the material dates to show that the petition
was filed on time, and
(b) the certification on non-forum shopping was signed only by their counsel. In addition, petitioners
argued that the issues raised are factual and there is no showing that the NLRC committed grave abuse
of discretion
• The OSG manifested that he is unable to sustain the position of the NLRC because the allegation that
respondents voluntarily resigned was not substantially established and respondents' non-compliance with
the formal requirements of the petition should be waived since the petition is meritorious.

2
• NLRC argued that in reversing the POEA, it focused its attention on the correct evaluation of the evidence
on record which substantially showed that petitioners did not dismiss respondents but that the latter
resigned en masse
• In accordance with St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC, we referred the petition to the CA which set
aside the NLRC decision and reinstated the POEA decision.
o The CA held that respondents were illegally dismissed since the petitioners failed to
substantiate their claim that respondents voluntarily resigned from employment.
o It ruled that the quitclaims are insufficient to show valid terminations. Anent non-compliance
with the formal requirements of the petition, the Court of Appeals, adopting the observation of
the Solicitor General, held that the case is an exception to the rule on strict adherence to
technicality.
• Petitioners filed an MR but the CA denied it
• Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari on the following grounds:
1. Under the law and applicable jurisprudence, the Petition for Certiorari filed by respondents should
have been denied outright for non-compliance with the requirements for filing a Petition
for Certiorari.
2. They cannot be considered to have been dismissed from employment, because it was them who
resigned from their employment. 18
There is no statement indicating the material dates when the decision of the NLRC was received and when
the MR was filed. Likewise, the certification on non-forum shopping was not signed by respondents but
by their counsel.
• In their Comment, respondents allege that the petition highlights the same arguments already raised and
squarely resolved by the CA.

ISSUE/S and HELD

RATIO
• Section 3 of Rule 46 provides that there are 3 material dates that must be stated in a petition
for certiorari brought under Rule 65:
3. when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received,
4. when an MNT or MR when one such was filed, and
5. when notice of the denial thereof was received.
o This requirement is for the purpose of determining the timeliness of the petition, since the
perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is
jurisdictional and failure to perfect an appeal as required by law renders the judgment final
and executory.
o The same rule requires the pleader to submit a certificate of non-forum shopping to be executed
by the plaintiff or principal party, since it is the plaintiff or principal party, and not the counsel
whose professional services have been retained for a particular case, who is in the best position
to know whether he or it actually filed or caused the filing of a petition in that case.
o As a general rule, these requirements are mandatory, meaning, non-compliance therewith
is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
• In the case before us, the failure to comply with the rule on a statement of material dates in the
petition may be excused since the dates are evident from the records.
o Records show that respondents filed their MR 16 days late
o The Rules provide that when MR is timely filed, the 60-day period for filing a petition
for certiorari shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion.

3
 o While respondents' MR was filed 16 days late, NLRC nonetheless acted thereon and denied it on
the basis of lack of merit.
o In resolving the merits of the motion despite being filed out of time, the NLRC undoubtedly
recognized that it is not strictly bound by the technicalities of law and procedure. Thus, the
60-day period for filing of a petition for certiorari should be reckoned from the date of the
receipt of that NLRC resolution denying the MR, thus, the filing (of Petition for certiorari)
made on = was well within the 60-day reglementary period.
• As regards the verification signed only by respondents' counsel, this procedural lapse could have
warranted the outright dismissal of respondents' petition for certiorari before CA.
o However, it must be remembered that the rules on forum shopping, which were precisely designed
to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should not be interpreted with such
absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective which is the goal of all
rules of procedure — that is, to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible.
o If the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is
always within the Court’s power to suspend the rules or except a particular case from its
operation.
o In this case, the CA aptly found compelling reasons to disregard respondents' procedural
lapses in order to obviate a patent injustice.
o Time and again we have ruled that in illegal dismissal cases like the present one, the onus of
proving that the employee was not dismissed or if dismissed, that the dismissal was not
illegal, rests on the employer and failure to discharge the same would mean that the
dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal.
o Thus, petitioners must not only rely on the weakness of respondents' evidence but must
stand on the merits of their own defense. A party alleging a critical fact must support his
allegation with substantial evidence for any decision based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot
stand as it will offend due process. Petitioners failed to discharge this burden.
o Resignation is the voluntary act of employees who are compelled by personal reasons to
dissociate themselves from their employment. It must be done with the intention of relinquishing
an office, accompanied by the act of abandonment. Thus, it is illogical for respondents to resign
and then file a complaint for illegal dismissal.
o Thus, we are more than convinced that respondents did not voluntarily quit their jobs. Rather,
they were forced to resign or were summarily dismissed without just cause.
• The Court of Appeals acted in the exercise of its sound discretion when it denied petitioners'
insistence to dismiss the petition for certiorari, in light of the factual and antecedent milieu. By so
doing, the appellate court correctly gave more importance to the resolution of the case on the merits

DISPOTITION
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June
30, 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 50504 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.