GR 160455; (May, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160455 ; May 9, 2005
Ateneo de Naga University and Edwin P. Bernal, petitioners, vs. Jovita S. Manalo, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Jovita S. Manalo filed a complaint for constructive dismissal against petitioners Ateneo de Naga University (ADNU) and its Dean, Edwin P. Bernal, as well as ADNU President Fr. Joel Tabora, S.J. The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in favor of Manalo. Subsequently, the petitioners and Fr. Tabora filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the NLRC’s decision.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in a resolution dated January 23, 2003, on a procedural ground. It found the attached verification and certification against forum shopping defective because it was signed only by Fr. Tabora, not by all petitioners. The CA cited the rule in Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman that all petitioners must sign unless one is duly authorized. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching a Special Power of Attorney from Bernal authorizing Tabora to sign for him and Secretary’s Certificates showing ADNU’s Board authorized Tabora to file the petition. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration insofar as the petitioners were concerned, maintaining the petition was fatally defective.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the sole ground of a defective verification and certification against forum shopping.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the case before the CA. The Court emphasized that the rule requiring a certification against forum shopping is intended to prevent forum shopping and is not meant to be a mere procedural technicality. The Court found that the defect had been substantially complied with and subsequently cured.
The Special Power of Attorney executed by Bernal in favor of Tabora, though belatedly submitted, was dated prior to the filing of the petition, proving authorization existed at the time of filing. For the corporate petitioner ADNU, the Secretary’s Certificates submitted upon motion for reconsideration sufficiently established that Tabora, as President, was authorized by the Board of Trustees to sign the certification, and his acts were later ratified. The Court ruled that the dismissal on this technical ground was too harsh, especially since ADNU is an indispensable party to the labor case. Following the principle that cases should be decided on their merits rather than on procedural technicalities, and considering the subsequent submission of the authorizing documents cured the initial defect, the Supreme Court set aside the CA’s resolutions and ordered the reinstatement of the petition for certiorari for proper adjudication on the substantive issues.