GR 191699; (April, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 191699. April 19, 2016.
WILLIAM GO QUE CONSTRUCTION AND/OR WILLIAM GO QUE, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND DANNY SINGSON, RODOLFO PASAQUI, LENDO LOMINIQUI, AND JUN ANDALES, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Private respondents, construction workers, filed complaints for illegal dismissal against petitioner. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, declaring them regular employees illegally dismissed. The NLRC reversed this decision, finding the dismissal valid due to alleged theft but awarding nominal damages for procedural defects. Private respondents then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The CA initially noted a defective jurat in their Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping and directed them to cure it. Private respondents submitted photocopies of their identification cards and a Joint Affidavit where three of them attested to the identity of their co-worker, Jun Andalos, and confirmed he was a co-petitioner, though he could not be located to submit his own ID.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in ruling that the submitted photocopies of IDs and the Joint Affidavit sufficiently cured the defect in the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping.
RULING
No, the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must be verified, and a certification of non-forum shopping must be executed by the petitioner or one with authority. The purpose is to secure an assurance that the allegations have been made in good faith. In this case, the defect pertained to proving the identities of the petitioners before the CA. The Court ruled that the submission of photocopies of valid government-issued IDs by three petitioners, coupled with their Joint Affidavit confirming the identity and status of the absent fourth petitioner, constituted competent evidence of identity. This compliance was a matter within the CA’s sound discretion to assess. The Court found no capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment, as the CA reasonably accepted the proffered documents to establish the parties’ identities, thereby curing the initial formal defect. The petition for certiorari was thus denied.