GR 165727; (April, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 165727 ; April 19, 2006
TOWER INDUSTRIAL SALES and JOHN KENNETH OCAMPO, Petitioners, vs. Hon. COURT OF APPEALS (Fifteenth Division), NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC, Third Division) and RUFO PAMALO, JR., Respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Rufo Pamalo, Jr., a driver for petitioner Tower Industrial Sales since 1987, filed a complaint for monetary claims against the company on February 12, 2002. Subsequently, the company issued him memoranda for alleged absences. Pamalo was placed under preventive suspension on March 9, 2002, and was later terminated on April 16, 2002, for gross misconduct. He then amended his complaint to include illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled the dismissal was valid, but the NLRC reversed this on appeal, finding illegal dismissal and ordering reinstatement with backwages.
Petitioners filed a “Petition for Annulment” of the NLRC decision before the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed the petition due to fatal procedural deficiencies. It noted the petition was essentially a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 but was defective for attaching only photostat copies of the assailed decision, failing to attach certified true copies of pleadings from the proceedings below, and containing a verification that did not comply with the rules.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for annulment/certiorari due to procedural infirmities.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal, emphasizing that a writ of certiorari is a prerogative writ issued only upon strict compliance with procedural rules. The petitioners’ petition before the CA suffered from multiple incurable defects: it was mislabeled as a petition for annulment but was substantively a Rule 65 petition; it attached mere photocopies, not certified true copies, of the NLRC decision; it lacked certified true copies of material pleadings from the labor tribunals; and its verification failed to aver that the allegations were based on authentic records as required.
The Court held that procedural rules are not to be disregarded. While liberal construction is allowed to serve justice, this liberality cannot be used to justify a blatant disregard of the rules, especially when the party seeking relief has not shown compelling reasons for non-compliance. The right to certiorari is not a natural right but depends on judicial discretion, which was correctly not exercised in the petitioners’ favor given their failure to follow the mandatory requirements. The dismissal was thus proper.