GR L 67706; (January, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-67706 January 29, 1988
ILIGAN CONCRETE PRODUCTS, and/or THE MANAGER, petitioner, vs. ANASTACIO MAGADAN, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Iligan Concrete Products sought to annul an order of the Ministry of Labor dated February 28, 1984, which denied its motion for reconsideration and affirmed a prior order granting the claim of private respondent Anastacio Magadan. Magadan, initially hired as a Collector in 1971, voluntarily resigned effective September 15, 1973. However, he filed a claim in July 1981 for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and underpayment of emergency cost of living allowance, alleging he was re-employed after his resignation and was dismissed without clearance. The Hearing Officer and the Ministry of Labor found an employer-employee relationship existed from September 15, 1973, to July 15, 1981, and ruled in Magadan’s favor.
The Solicitor General, representing the public respondent, filed a comment arguing the petition was fatally defective for non-compliance with Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Specifically, the petition failed to allege facts with certainty and did not attach certified copies of the pertinent orders sought to be reviewed. Private respondent Magadan supported the labor tribunal’s findings, alleging his name appeared on payrolls and that the petitioner failed to refute this with records, and he opted for separation pay instead of reinstatement.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for certiorari should be dismissed for failure to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for being insufficient in form and substance. The Court agreed with the Solicitor General’s contention that the petition failed to comply with Section 1, Rule 65, which requires that the petition must allege the facts with certainty and attach certified true copies of the orders or documents subject of the review. Here, the petitioner merely reproduced the text of the February 28, 1984, order on the first page of its petition, claiming this was “substantial compliance” instead of attaching the certified copies. This order, however, only stated the denial of the motion for reconsideration and the affirmation of the May 13, 1983, order, without providing the substantive contents of the affirmed order.
The Court emphasized that while it may consider substantial compliance with the Rules in certain cases, no such compliance existed here. The absence of the actual text of the orders sought to be annulled left the Court unable to properly evaluate the petition’s merits, as it could not ascertain the factual and legal bases of the labor tribunal’s decision. Citing Canete vs. Wislizenus, the Court held it is not obliged to speculate on the pleader’s intentions or reconstruct missing documents. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for procedural infirmities, with costs against the petitioner.