GR 196084; (February, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 196084 February 15, 2017
NUEVA ECIJA II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., AREA I, REYNALDO VILLANUEVA, and EULALIA CASTRO, Petitioners vs. ELMER B. MAPAGU, Respondent
FACTS
Respondent Elmer Mapagu, a data processor for petitioner electric cooperative (NEEC), was charged with grave violations of the company code after a special audit revealed his electric meter had been under-read and under-billed, resulting in unaccounted consumption. Mapagu denied the charges, asserting his meter had no readings for a period and that he had availed of a company amnesty program. An internal committee found the specific charges unestablished but concluded Mapagu failed to act on the anomaly for his benefit, recommending a two-year suspension. Despite this, NEEC dismissed Mapagu from service.
Mapagu filed an illegal dismissal complaint. The Labor Arbiter ruled for NEEC, but the NLRC reversed the decision. The NLRC found dismissal too severe, noting NEEC had condoned similar or worse offenses by other employees through suspension or separation pay, demonstrating bias. It awarded Mapagu separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. NEEC filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it outright due to an unsigned Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari due to a defective Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, upholding the mandatory nature of the requirements for a Verification and a Certification against Forum Shopping under the Rules of Court. The Court explained that these are not mere formalities but essential requisites to ensure the truthfulness of allegations and to prevent forum shopping, which degrades the administration of justice.
The legal logic is clear: strict compliance is required. The certification must be signed by the petitioner itself or its duly authorized representative. In this case, the certification attached to the CA petition was signed only by NEEC’s counsel, without any accompanying board resolution or secretary’s certificate proving the counsel’s authority to represent the cooperative for that specific purpose. Counsel’s general authority to represent a client in litigation does not automatically extend to executing a certification against forum shopping, which requires personal knowledge by the party. The defect is fatal and warrants the petition’s dismissal. The Court found no compelling reason to relax the rule, as the circumstances did not constitute a special circumstance or compelling reason meriting liberality. Consequently, the CA resolutions were affirmed.