G.R. No. 194031; August 8, 2011
Jobel Enterprises and/or Mr. Benedict Lim, Petitioners, vs. National Labor Relations Commission (Seventh Division, Quezon City) and Eric Martinez, Sr., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jobel Enterprises hired respondent Eric Martinez, Sr. as a driver in 2004. On January 27, 2005, Martinez had a fight with a co-employee. The company’s proprietor instructed him to come early the next day for an important delivery, but Martinez did not report for work, and the company’s efforts to contact him failed. On March 6, 2006, the company received a notice from the DOLE regarding an illegal dismissal complaint filed by Martinez. Conciliation failed as Martinez allegedly demanded ₱300,000.00 and manifested he no longer wanted to work. The Labor Arbiter ruled Martinez was illegally dismissed and awarded him backwages, separation pay, wage differentials, and 13th month pay totaling over ₱500,000.00. The petitioners appealed to the NLRC, filing a notice of appeal, a memorandum of appeal, a motion to reduce bond, and deposited a ₱100,000.00 manager’s check. The NLRC denied the motion to reduce bond and directed the posting of an additional cash or surety bond of ₱432,892.93 within ten days. The company complied by posting a surety bond within the period and submitted supporting documents on the bond’s effectivity and the surety company’s legal standing. Nevertheless, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for alleged failure to substantially address the issue of posting the required appeal bond. The company elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari. The CA dismissed the petition because the company attached a mere photocopy, not a duplicate original or certified true copy, of the assailed NLRC decision. The company corrected this by attaching a certified true copy in its motion for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on purely technical grounds, thereby disregarding the merits of the case.

RULING

Yes, the petition is granted. The Supreme Court set aside the CA resolutions. The Court found that both the NLRC and the CA dismissed the case on purely technical grounds in total disregard of its merits. The NLRC grossly erred in dismissing the appeal for non-perfection, as the company had complied with the NLRC’s directive to post an additional surety bond within the given period and submitted the required supporting documents. The CA also erred in its overly rigid application of procedural rules by dismissing the petition for lack of a certified true copy of the NLRC decision, a lapse which the company rectified in its motion for reconsideration. The Court emphasized that technicalities should not be used to defeat substantial justice, especially when the petitioners’ case is not patially frivolous. The core issue of whether Martinez was dismissed or had abandoned his job warranted further review. The case was remanded to the NLRC for resolution of the petitioners’ appeal with dispatch. Costs were imposed on respondent Martinez.