G.R. No. 154837 March 22, 2007
ANG BIAT HUAN SONS INDUSTRIES, INC., represented by EDUARDO ANG GOBONSENG, SR., Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM and MAURO TINAYTINA, substituted by his wife GLORIA TINAYTINA, Respondents.

FACTS

Mauro Tinaytina filed a complaint with the Social Security Commission (SSC) against his former employers, New Bian Yek Commercial and Ang Biat Huan Sons Industries, Inc., for adjustment of his social security coverage and remittance of unpaid contributions. He claimed continuous employment from 1969 to 1978. The SSC ruled that Tinaytina was an employee of New Bian Yek from July 1973 to June 1975 and of petitioner Ang Biat Huan from January 1976 to November 1978. It ordered both companies to pay unpaid contributions and penalties. Specifically, it held petitioner liable for unpaid contributions and a ₱45,600 penalty for misrepresenting Tinaytina’s employment date under the Social Security Law.
Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) to challenge the SSC’s ruling. However, the CA dismissed the petition outright on technical grounds. It cited the lack of proof that the signatory on the verification and certification against forum shopping was duly authorized, the absence of an affidavit of service, and the submission of mere photocopies instead of certified true copies of the assailed resolutions. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for review on purely technical grounds.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that the proper remedy from the CA’s dismissal was a petition for review under Rule 45, not the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 filed by the petitioner. A writ of certiorari is only available when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Since an appeal via Rule 45 was available and lost, certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal. The Court emphasized that certiorari is not a remedy for errors of judgment, which are correctible by appeal, but only for jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion.
On the substantive issue, the Court found that the CA’s dismissal based on petitioner’s failure to comply with procedural rules was justified. Procedural rules are designed to facilitate the orderly administration of justice. The requirement for a proper verification and certification against forum shopping, especially for a corporation, is mandatory. The authority of the corporate officer signing such certification must be shown. Petitioner’s failure to attach proof of Eduardo Ang Gobonseng, Sr.’s authority to represent the corporation was a fatal defect. The Court upheld the CA’s application of the rules, noting that while litigation should be decided on merits, adherence to procedure is required to ensure an efficient and orderly judicial system.