Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83682:57888&catid=1587&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:12:44+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 194176, September 10, 2014 - LIMUELL C. NARCISO, OMAR C. MATUGUINA, ERIC MATUGUINA, AZENITH MAG-ASO, LILIBETH MASCARIÑAS, LUTGARDO OGAMA, LOLITO COLLAMAT, IRIS MATUGUINA AND ELMER BANILAD, CARLOS B. MATUGUINA, JR., BIBIANO ESTRERA, JR., PEDRO LINABOG, BOBBY ALQUEZA, SANTIAGO ATIS, MARLON DAMAYO, CASINILLO NESTRO, BERNARDITO DACAN, SABINIANO PATATAG, JOLLYBOY MONICIT, RODRIGO DAYDAY, REY ESTRERA, CRESENCIO CASIO, DOMINICO AVILA, ERVERT RICAZA, ENRIQUE PANTILGAN, JONARDEN E. GONZAGA, RENATO CASIO, BENNY BOOC, DUA CORSINO, RANILO IGOT, NARCISO PATERNO, ROBERTO RABAL, JULITO MONSALES, LEOPOLDO MONGUEZ, JR., ROWEL NEIGAS, EPIFANIO PIAMIL, LOUIE JUDILLAS AND MANUEL CENIZA, Petitioners, v. PACIFIC TRADERS & MANUFACTURING CORPORATION (PTMC)/TABOK WORKERS MULTI­PURPOSE COOPERATIVE (TWMPC), Respondents.
LIMUELL C. NARCISO, OMAR C. MATUGUINA, ERIC MATUGUINA, AZENITH MAG-ASO, LILIBETH MASCARIÑAS, LUTGARDO OGAMA, LOLITO COLLAMAT, IRIS MATUGUINA AND ELMER BANILAD, CARLOS B. MATUGUINA, JR., BIBIANO ESTRERA, JR., PEDRO LINABOG, BOBBY ALQUEZA, SANTIAGO ATIS, MARLON DAMAYO, CASINILLO NESTRO, BERNARDITO DACAN, SABINIANO PATATAG, JOLLYBOY MONICIT, RODRIGO DAYDAY, REY ESTRERA, CRESENCIO CASIO, DOMINICO AVILA, ERVERT RICAZA, ENRIQUE PANTILGAN, JONARDEN E. GONZAGA, RENATO CASIO, BENNY BOOC, DUA CORSINO, RANILO IGOT, NARCISO PATERNO, ROBERTO RABAL, JULITO MONSALES, LEOPOLDO MONGUEZ, JR., ROWEL NEIGAS, EPIFANIO PIAMIL, LOUIE JUDILLAS AND MANUEL CENIZA, Petitioners, v. PACIFIC TRADERS & MANUFACTURING CORPORATION (PTMC)/TABOK WORKERS MULTI­PURPOSE COOPERATIVE (TWMPC), Respondents.
This is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision2 dated March 25, 2010 and the Resolution3 dated September 30, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-SP. No. 02021 which affirmed the Order4 dated February 22, 2006 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners for failure to attach thereto a certificate of non-forum shopping.
The petitioners persisted in their cause and elevated the matter to the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC.
The petitioners moved for reconsideration22 but their motion was denied in the CA Resolution23 dated September 30, 2010.
Grave abuse of discretion connotes utter absence of any basis for the NLRC ruling.27 The attendant facts and records on hand show otherwise.
The petitioners aver that the CA should have granted their petition for certiorari and relaxed the NLRC Rules of Procedure because on page 53 of their memorandum on appeal is the caption "Verification and Certification." However, the counsel for the petitioners inadvertently deleted the paragraphs intended for the certification of non-forum shopping. They assert that they were in a hurry in preparing the memorandum due to the very limited time of 10 days to file the same. They proffer these as justifiable causes for their non-compliance with the NLRC Rules of Procedure and submit that their belated filing of the certificate in their motion for reconsideration was substantial compliance. They further aver that the outright dismissal of their appeal on a mere technicality would seriously impair the orderly administration of justice.
Here, the reasons cited by the petitioners for their failure to attach the certificate in their appeal memorandum can hardly be considered as special circumstances or compelling reasons to warrant a liberal application of the rules of procedure. Moreover, based on the facts of the case, a strict application of a technical rule will not prejudice the administration of justice in view of the petitioners' unmeritorious claims.
In fine, in the absence of justifiable and compelling reasons, a liberal application of procedural rules is not warranted in this case. The Court thus agrees with the CA that no grave abuse of discretion is attributable to the NLRC when it found no justification to excuse the absence of a certificate of non-forum shopping in the petitioners' memorandum on appeal.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 25, 2010 and Resolution dated September 30, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-SP. No. 02021 are hereby AFFIRMED.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting, with Acting Executive Justice Edgardo L. De los Santos and Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring; id. at 87-94.
4 Not attached in the petition but referred to in the assailed CA Decision, id. at 89.
7 Back wages, service incentive leave, 13th month pay, holiday premium, SSS, illegal deduction and attorney's fees, id. at 88.
13 Julie C. Rendoque, id. at 202.
14 Id. at 17, 133, 202.
19 Id. at 90, 133.
25Sutherland Global Services (Philippines), Inc. and Janette G Lagazo v. Larry S. Labrador, G.R. No. 193107, March 24, 2014.
27Diones Belza v. Danilo T. Canonero, Antonio N. Esquivel and Cezar I. Belza, G.R. No. 192479, January 27, 2014.
28 This was the rule of procedure in effect at the time of the promulgation of the NLRC Resolutions assailed in the instant petition. At present, the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure is observed in cases filed before the NLRC.
29Mandaue Galleon Trade, Inc. v. Isidto, G.R. No. 181051, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA414, 421.
32 Portions of the LA Decision were quoted in the petition, id. at 30-32.

References: v. 
 v. 
In fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v.