GR 173127; (October, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 173127 ; October 17, 2007
DEE HWA LIONG ELECTRONICS CORPORATION (DEECO) and/or JANET DEE, Petitioners, vs. EMELINDA PAPIONA, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Emelinda Papiona, a sales clerk, had a heated public altercation with petitioner Janet Dee, a co-owner of DEECO, on February 22, 2003, over her failure to answer intercom calls. Respondent immediately left work, claiming she feared for her life, and filed a complaint for illegal constructive dismissal two days later. Petitioners repeatedly directed her to return to work, but she refused, reiterating her fear in a March 10, 2003 letter. The Labor Arbiter dismissed her complaint, finding no constructive dismissal and noting her unexplained absence and the company’s directives to return.
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the finding of no illegal dismissal but modified the decision by awarding respondent separation pay equivalent to one month’s pay per year of service. Petitioners challenged this award via a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, arguing that separation pay is unwarranted absent a finding of illegal dismissal. The CA dismissed the petition due to procedural flaws, including an unsigned petition, incomplete attachments, and a defective verification. The CA denied their motion for reconsideration, stating subsequent compliance does not cure the defects and that the petition lacked merit.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the petition for certiorari on procedural grounds.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the Court of Appeals’ dismissal. The ruling is anchored on strict adherence to procedural rules. Petitioners failed to comply with the mandatory requirements under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for a special civil action for certiorari, specifically regarding the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, the completeness of attached documents, and the explanation for service by mail. The Court emphasized that while procedural rules may be relaxed for compelling reasons, petitioners neither invoked such liberality nor offered a satisfactory explanation for their non-compliance. The general rule on strict observance of procedure must stand to prevent disregard of the rules. The Court also noted that petitioners did not properly raise or argue any reversible error in the CA’s substantive evaluation in their Petition for Review, limiting its review to the procedural correctness of the CA’s dismissal.