G.R. No. 142314; June 28, 2001
MC ENGINEERING, INC., and HANIL DEVELOPMENT CORP., LTD., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ARISTOTLE BALDAMECA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Hanil Development Co., Ltd. (Hanil) is the overseas employer of contract workers deployed by petitioner MC Engineering, Inc. (MCEI) under a Service Contract Agreement. Private respondent Aristotle Baldameca entered into an Employment Agreement with MCEI for deployment as a plumber in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, commencing work on September 21, 1992, under a twelve-month contract. He was repatriated on January 19, 1993, before the contract term ended. On October 19, 1993, Baldameca filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the POEA, which was later referred to the NLRC. The labor arbiter rendered a decision on April 27, 1998, holding petitioners MCEI and Hanil jointly and severally liable. The NLRC dismissed petitioners’ appeal on February 26, 1999, and denied their motion for reconsideration on September 28, 1999. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on December 17, 1999. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in a Resolution dated December 27, 1999, citing two fatal defects: (1) the absence of a certification against forum shopping by co-petitioner Hanil Development Co., Ltd., and (2) the lack of a written explanation why service of the pleading was not done personally. The Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on March 3, 2000.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari on the grounds of: (1) non-compliance with the certification against forum shopping requirement, as the certification was signed only by MCEI’s corporate secretary and not by Hanil; and (2) failure to provide a written explanation for service by registered mail instead of personal service.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court held that the certification against forum shopping signed only by the corporate secretary of petitioner MCEI, and not by a representative of petitioner Hanil, did not constitute substantial compliance. The rule requires that all petitioners must sign the certification, and the failure of one petitioner to do so is a sufficient ground for dismissal. The Court rejected the argument that MCEI, as the local agent, could sign on behalf of its foreign principal Hanil for this specific procedural requirement, distinguishing it from the substantive capacity to sue jointly. On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioners’ failure to provide a written explanation for resorting to service by registered mail, as required by Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, was a fatal defect. The Court found no compelling reason to excuse this procedural lapse. The petition was dismissed for failure to comply with mandatory procedural rules.