GR 168208; (June, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168208 ; June 13, 2012
VIVIAN T. RAMIREZ, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. MAR FISHING CO., INC., MIRAMAR FISHING CO., INC., ROBERT BUEHS AND JEROME SPITZ, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Mar Fishing Co., Inc., a tuna fishing and canning company, sold its principal assets to co-respondent Miramar Fishing Co., Inc. through public bidding. The proceeds were used to settle Mar Fishing’s substantial loan obligation. Consequently, Mar Fishing issued a memorandum informing its workers of the cessation of its operations by the end of October 2001, notifying the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) merely two days prior. Miramar and the labor union entered into a Memorandum of Agreement wherein Miramar would absorb satisfactory rank-and-file employees. However, petitioners, who were rank-and-file employees, were not hired by Miramar nor given separation pay.
Petitioners filed complaints for illegal dismissal with money claims. The Labor Arbiter ruled the dismissal was for an authorized cause (closure) and awarded separation pay, dismissing the case against Miramar. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified this, declaring the dismissal ineffectual due to the two-day DOLE notice and awarding both separation pay and back wages. It initially pierced the corporate veil to hold Mar Fishing and Miramar solidarily liable but later reconsidered, imposing liability solely on Mar Fishing.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioners’ Petition for Review for lack of a proper verification and certification against forum shopping.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The petition filed before the Court of Appeals was a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the NLRC’s resolutions. The Rules of Court mandate that such a petition must be verified and accompanied by a certification against forum shopping. The Court of Appeals found that the verification and certification attached to the petition were signed by only three petitioners, without any proof of authority to sign on behalf of all 134 co-petitioners. This defect was fatal.
The Supreme Court upheld this procedural ruling, emphasizing that the requirement of a certification against forum shopping is mandatory. The authority of some petitioners to represent all others cannot be presumed; it must be demonstrated through a special power of attorney or a board resolution, especially given the large number of parties involved. The petitioners’ failure to comply warranted the petition’s dismissal. The Court also noted that the substantive issue—the validity of the dismissal—had been correctly resolved by the NLRC, which properly awarded separation pay and back wages due to the defective notice of closure, while correctly refusing to pierce the corporate veil to hold Miramar liable absent evidence of fraud or bad faith in the asset sale.