FELIPE N. CARIAGA AND NOEL C. YAMBA, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, EIGHTH [8TH] DIVISION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY AND BLUE ARMOUR SECURITY INVESTIGATION & GE…

Cariaga versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Felipe N. Cariaga and Noel C. Yamba against the National Labor Relations Commission, Eighth Division, Cagayan de Oro City, and Blue Armour Security Investigation and General Services. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to set aside the labor commission's resolutions dismissing their partial appeal as filed out of time and denying their motion for reconsideration. The case matters to every bar candidate because the Court never reaches the merits: it dismisses the petition outright for procedural defects, and in doing so restates the hard rule that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in the manner and within the periods the law prescribes.

Procedural History

The case began before Executive Labor Arbiter Elbert C. Restauro, who rendered a decision on August 22, 2012. Both sides appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. In its resolution dated January 31, 2013, the commission's Eighth Division dismissed the complainants' partial appeal for being filed out of time, denied the respondents' appeal for lack of merit, and affirmed the labor arbiter's decision. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, which the commission denied in its resolution dated March 27, 2013. From these twin resolutions, the petitioners went directly to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Facts

After the labor arbiter decided against them, the petitioners, Cariaga and Yamba, filed a partial appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission. The commission found that appeal tardy and dismissed it as filed out of time. The respondents' own appeal fared no better, but that did not help the petitioners, because the labor arbiter's decision was affirmed in full.

The petitioners sought reconsideration and failed. They then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by certiorari, assailing the January 31, 2013 resolution and the March 27, 2013 resolution denying reconsideration.

What the Court noticed at once was that the petition did not match its own annexes. Its statement of material dates spoke of a February 28, 2013 resolution allegedly received on March 14, 2013, and a May 7, 2013 resolution allegedly received on September 23, 2013 — dates that did not correspond to the resolutions actually assailed. The petition also omitted key pleadings, including the private respondent's position paper, the parties' appeal memoranda, and the motion for reconsideration. Finally, the notarial certificates on the verification and certification of non-forum shopping and on the affidavit of proof of service were defective: they failed to state competent evidence of the affiant's identity, the notary's commission serial number, the province or city of commissioning, the notary's office address, and the notary's roll of attorneys number.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for certiorari may be given due course despite its failure to state the material dates clearly, as required of petitions under Rule 65.
• Whether or not the petition may be entertained despite its failure to attach pertinent pleadings and material portions of the record.
• Whether or not the defective notarial certificates on the verification, certification of non-forum shopping, and affidavit of proof of service are sufficient ground to dismiss the petition.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3 of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, which the Court quotes in full, provides:

Section 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received. It shall be filed in seven clearly legible copies together with proof of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy intended for the court indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to herein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. The petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court and deposit the amount of 500 pesos for costs at the time of the filing of the petition. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

This provision supplies the very grounds on which the petition fails: the missing material dates, the absent pleadings, and the incomplete records.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition violated Section 3 of Rule 46 because it contained no clear statement of material dates that would allow the Court to determine whether it was timely filed. Worse, the dates it did state referred to resolutions other than those assailed. The requirement is not idle; without the material dates, the Court cannot police the sixty-day period for certiorari.

On the second issue, the Court found that pertinent pleadings and material portions of the records were not attached — the private respondent's position paper, the appeal memoranda, and the motion for reconsideration — again in violation of Section 3 of Rule 46.

On the third issue, the Court held that the notarial certificates failed to comply with the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice, both as to competent evidence of identity under Section 12 of Rule II and as to the notary's details under Section 2 of Rule VIII.

Against the plea for liberality, the Court balanced two principles. Rules of procedure must be used to facilitate, not to frustrate, the ends of justice. But the right to appeal is not a natural right; it is a statutory privilege, exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. A party who seeks to appeal must comply with the law's requirements; otherwise, he forfeits his privilege. Rules may be relaxed only to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure. Here, the defects were too many and too plain.

Doctrine

• The right to appeal is not a natural right but a statutory privilege, exercisable only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law; non-compliance forfeits the privilege.
• A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must state the material dates — receipt of the judgment or final order, filing of any motion for reconsideration, and receipt of the denial — and must attach the assailed ruling and material portions of the record; failure is a sufficient ground for dismissal under Section 3 of Rule 46.
• Verification, certification of non-forum shopping, and proof of service must comply with the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice, including competent evidence of identity and the notary's commission details.
• Rules of procedure may be relaxed only to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari, and the labor commission's resolutions stood.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right, and it is lost by non-compliance. Examiners use this case to test Rule 65 material dates, the complete-requirements rule of Section 3 of Rule 46, and the limits of liberal construction of procedural rules.