G.R. No. 146923 ; April 30, 2003
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and DIAR’S ASSISTANCE LABOR UNION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) sought recourse from the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari to assail an NLRC Decision that declared the members of respondent Diar’s Assistance Labor Union as regular employees of the bank. The CA dismissed BPI’s petition on a technical ground, ruling that the verification and certification against forum shopping attached to the petition were signed only by the bank’s vice-president without a board resolution or power of attorney expressly authorizing him to do so. BPI filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching the required board resolution, but the CA denied it.
The labor case originated from a complaint for regularization filed by the union against BPI and its manpower agency, Diar’s Assistance, Inc. This was the second such case; a prior regularization case involving some of the same parties and the same cause of action had already been dismissed with finality by the Supreme Court. BPI argued that the second case was barred by res judicata and constituted forum shopping.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the CA erred in dismissing BPI’s petition based on a technicality concerning the verification and forum shopping certificate; and (2) whether the second regularization case is barred by res judicata.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the CA committed reversible error in dismissing the petition on a mere technicality. The rules on verification and certification against forum shopping, while mandatory, are not jurisdictional. Their strict application may be relaxed to serve substantial justice, especially when a satisfactory explanation for the lapse is provided and the requirement is subsequently complied with, as BPI did by submitting the board resolution in its motion for reconsideration. Dismissal based solely on this initial defect was too harsh, given BPI’s substantial compliance and the important substantive issues involved.
On the second issue, the Supreme Court found it necessary to resolve the substantive claim of res judicata. However, it noted that Diar’s Assistance, Inc., BPI’s co-respondent in the NLRC and an indispensable party, had a separate but similar petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 59093) pending before the CA challenging the same NLRC Decision. To avoid conflicting rulings and to completely settle the controversy, the Court deemed it proper for the CA to resolve the issue with both indispensable parties present. Therefore, the Court remanded the case to the CA with instructions to consolidate BPI’s petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 59858) with the separate petition filed by Diar.