G.R. No. 141117 . March 25, 2004.
UNITED PULP AND PAPER CO., INC., petitioner, vs. UNITED PULP AND PAPER CHAPTER-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner United Pulp and Paper Co., Inc. implemented a Promotions Policy providing that for union employees, a promotional increase shall be 5% compounded for every pay class jump. However, this increase must not cause the promoted employee’s salary to exceed that of the lowest-paid incumbent in the same position; if it would, the increase is limited to a minimum of 3%. In 1998, employee Teodorico Simbulan was promoted, and the respondent union contested the salary increase he received, arguing he was entitled to the full 5% per pay class jump. The Voluntary Arbitrators ruled in favor of the union, ordering petitioner to pay Simbulan the differential.
Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals assailing the Arbitrators’ decision. The Appellate Court dismissed the petition outright due to procedural defects. It found that the verification and certification against forum-shopping was signed only by petitioner’s counsel, not by a duly authorized company officer. Furthermore, the petition lacked the required written explanation for not serving copies personally and failed to attach registry receipts as proof of service.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for review on the grounds of procedural infirmities.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed that strict compliance with procedural rules on non-forum shopping certifications is mandatory. Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the certification must be signed by the plaintiff or principal party. The Court, citing Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals, held that the signature of counsel alone is insufficient, as there was no showing counsel was authorized to sign for the corporate petitioner. This rule prevents circumvention by allowing counsel to sign for corporate parties.
Moreover, petitioner’s failure to provide a written explanation for resorting to service by mail, as required by Section 11, Rule 13, and to attach registry receipts constituted additional fatal procedural lapses. The Court emphasized that while litigation should be decided on merits, adherence to procedure is indispensable for orderly justice. The rules apply equally to all parties, and the dismissal based on these technicalities was proper. The substantive merits of the labor case were thus not reached due to petitioner’s failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements for appeal.