GR 172174; (July, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172174; July 9, 2009
DAVAO CONTRACTORS DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE (DACODECO), represented by Chairman of the Board Engr. EDGAR L. CHAVEZ, Petitioner, vs. MARILYN A. PASAWA, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner DACODECO hired respondent Marilyn Pasawa as General Manager. In May 2004, an evaluation committee formed by DACODECO’s Board reported her performance as average, citing lack of construction knowledge and a false statement made in an assembly. Based on this, the Board terminated her services. Pasawa filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, declaring her a probationary employee whose dismissal was invalid because she was not informed of the reasonable standards for her regularization at the time of her engagement. The Arbiter awarded separation pay and backwages.
DACODECO appealed to the NLRC, but its appeal was dismissed for failure to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping to its memorandum of appeal. DACODECO then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed this petition on technical grounds: the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping were signed by Edgar Chavez, who was not shown to be authorized for the CA proceeding, and the petition failed to state the required material dates, such as the date of receipt of the NLRC resolution.
ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing DACODECO’s petition for certiorari on pure technicalities?
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. On procedure, the rules on verification and certification of non-forum shopping are mandatory. Chavez’s authorization was limited to NLRC proceedings, and no proof was presented that he was authorized to represent DACODECO before the CA. Furthermore, the petition’s failure to state the material dates is a fatal defect that warrants dismissal, as these dates are crucial for determining the timeliness of the petition. The court emphasized that while litigation should be decided on merits, procedural rules are not to be disregarded lightly, and DACODECO’s non-compliance was not a mere technicality but a substantive violation.
On the merits, the Supreme Court found the petition lacked merit, upholding the Labor Arbiter’s finding of illegal dismissal. Pasawa was a probationary employee. Under Article 281 of the Labor Code, a probationary employee may be terminated for failing to meet reasonable standards made known at the time of engagement. DACODECO failed to prove it informed Pasawa of these standards upon her hiring. The evaluation standards were only introduced later via the committee. Therefore, her dismissal for allegedly failing to meet unknown standards was invalid. The CA’s dismissal on technical grounds was correct, and the substantive issue also favored the respondent.