Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=45872:148287&amp;catid=1459&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:49:47+00:00

Document:
PET PLANS, INC. and ADRIAN V. OCAMPO, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the nullification of the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated February 28, 20011 and May 22, 2001,2 which dismissed CA-G.R. SP. No. 62410, a special civil action for certiorari brought to it by petitioners, and denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration, respectively.
Petitioner PET PLANS, Incorporated (PET PLANS for brevity) is a company engaged in the business of selling educational, pension and memorial plans while co-petitioner Adrian V. Ocampo (Ocampo for brevity) is its President.
WHEREFORE, with all the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered declaring complainant illegally dismissed and ordering respondents jointly and severally to reinstate him to his former position without loss of seniority rights with full backwages and other benefits computed at P26,533.00 basic pay including 13th month pay and allowances from June 16 to December 31, 1999, and P144, 910.35 unpaid basic wages including 13th month pay for 1996 to 1998 plus ten percent attorney's fees. The reinstatement aspect is immediately executory even pending appeal. In case reinstatement is no longer feasible complainant shall be paid separation pay of one month compensation pay including allowances for every year of service. All other claims are hereby dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED to the extent that the award of backwages amounting to P26,533.00 is hereby SET ASIDE. In all other aspects, the said decision is hereby AFFIRMED.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied.
Aggrieved by the NLRC decision, herein petitioners, on January 24, 2001, filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
The Court resolves to DISMISS the petition for defective or insufficient certification against forum-shopping in that it is not signed by the principal party or by petitioner himself as referred to by Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure but was signed by a certain Rolando Espino without any certification or attachment that he was indeed authorized to sign for and in behalf of the petitioner corporation and to bind the same.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied in a Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals on May 22, 2001.
Before going into the main issue of the case, we deem it proper to pass upon the correctness of the mode of review availed of by petitioners in filing the present petition.
Petitioners brought the present case to this Court through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The present petition seeks to set aside the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals which outrightly dismissed the special civil action for certiorari . No issue as to the merits of the case was presented in the present petition. The only issue raised before us is the propriety of the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of the petition for certiorari filed before it, - that is, whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the said petition. In fact, the petition filed before us merely seeks to have the case remanded to the Court of Appeals for adjudication on the merits of the petition. Understandably, there is nothing to appeal under Rule 455 from the questioned resolutions of the Court of Appeals as there was no judgment on the merits of the issues raised before it. Thus, the instant petition should be considered as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
We now come to the main issue in the present case.
Section 1. Petition for certiorari . - When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
Section 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. - . . .
In CA-G.R. SP No. 62410, a certain Rolando M. Espino signed the Verification and Certification attached to the petition for certiorari , as the duly authorized representative of petitioners. However, no proof was presented to show that Espino is indeed the authorized representative of petitioners. As a consequence, CA-G.R. SP No. 62410 was dismissed by the Court of Appeals.
In the present case, a reading of the subject resolution issued by the Board of Directors of PET PLANS, shows that it authorizes Espino to represent only PET PLANS, not its co-petitioner, Ocampo. Nothing in the records at hand indicates that Espino is clothed with special authority to represent Ocampo. Hence, Espino does not represent Ocampo, in the filing of CA-G.R. SP No. 62410. As such, Ocampo, being a petitioner in his own right, should have also signed the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping attached to the petition of CA-G.R. SP No. 62410. Ordinarily, Ocampo should have been considered a nominal party as he was merely impleaded by complainant in his capacity as the president of PET PLANS and no specific claim or charge against him, in his personal capacity, was alleged in the complaint filed with the NLRC, Regional Arbitration Branch. However, considering that the Labor Arbiter's decision made him jointly and solidarily liable with PET PLANS, he has become a real party-in-interest whose stake, subsequent to the Labor Arbiter's decision, have become distinct from those of petitioner corporation. As such, it becomes inevitable for him to sign the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping.
In the present case, it cannot be said with certainty that Espino knows beyond doubt that Ocampo has not filed before any court or tribunal a separate case related to the present petition and the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 62410. In Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman,16 we held that failure of one of the petitioners to sign the verification and certificate against forum shopping constitutes a defect in the petition, which is a ground for dismissing the same. While we have held in rulings subsequent to Loquias that this rule may be relaxed, petitioners must comply with two conditions: first, petitioners must show justifiable cause for their failure to personally sign the certification and; second, they must also be able to prove that the outright dismissal of the petition would seriously impair the orderly administration of justice.17 In the present case, we find that petitioners failed to prove the presence of these conditions. The dismissal by the Court of Appeals of CA-G.R. SP No. 62410 should have put petitioners on guard as to the basic procedural requirements in filing the petition. Notwithstanding such dismissal and their subsequent filing of a motion for reconsideration, petitioners still failed to substantially comply with the requirements of the Rules by the failure of Ocampo to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping. In the present petition filed before us, PET PLANS once again failed to submit proof that it has authorized Espino to file the present petition or to sign the verification and certificate against forum shopping attached thereto. Likewise, petitioner Ocampo again failed to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping. We cannot allow a party to gain an advantage from its flagrant disregard of the Rules.18 We find this fatal to petitioners' cause.
Thus, we find that the Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion in rendering the assailed Resolutions in CA-G.R. SP No. 62410.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED.
Puno, (Chairman), Callejo, Sr., TINGA, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
1 Penned by Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Justices Bennie A. Adefuin-Dela Cruz and Rebecca de Guia-Salvador.
3 Docketed as NLRC RAB II Case No. 09-0089-99.
6 CA Rollo, p. 99.
8 Novelty Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 411 SCRA 211, 220 (2003).
10 El Reyno Homes, Inc. v. Ong, 397 SCRA 563, 570 (2003).
12 Mariveles Shipyard Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 415 SCRA 573, 584 (2003).
16 338 SCRA 62, 68 (2000).
17 Spouses Ortiz v. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 708, 712 (1998); Docena v. Lapesura, 355 SCRA 658, 667 (2001); Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation, G.R. No. 149634, July 6, 2004.
18 Philippine Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127469, January 15, 2004.

References: V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.