VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC. AND/OR RICARDO B. YANSON, SR., PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION; VTI EMPLOYEES UNION ALU-TUCP, IN BEHALF OF ITS MEMBERS JOSE ALBISO, M…

Vallacar Transit versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Vallacar Transit, Incorporated and its officer Ricardo Yanson, Senior, against the National Labor Relations Commission and the VTI Employees Union, acting for its members led by Jose Albiso. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to set aside two resolutions of the labor commission's Seventh Division, and they also ask for a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of those resolutions. The case matters to a bar candidate because the Court never reaches the merits of the labor dispute at all. It disposes of the petition on procedural grounds, and in doing so it gives a compact lesson on verification, on the complete record requirement for certiorari, and on the strict standards for injunctive relief.

Procedural History

The dispute began with individual complaints filed by the union members before Regional Arbitration Branch Number Seven. The labor arbiter's proceedings produced a position paper from the petitioners and, on appeal, a memorandum of appeal from the private respondents together with an answer from the petitioners. The National Labor Relations Commission's Seventh Division then issued a decision dated the fifteenth of July, 2013, followed by a resolution dated the fifteenth of November, 2013, denying the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. From those rulings the petitioners went directly to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. The Court, through Justice Lagura-Yap, found several infirmities on the face of the petition and dismissed it outright.

Facts

The private respondents, members of the VTI Employees Union, filed their respective complaints before Regional Arbitration Branch Number Seven. The petitioners filed their position paper with its annexes before the same branch. The matter went up on appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission, where the private respondents filed a memorandum of appeal and the petitioners filed an answer.

The commission's Seventh Division rendered a decision on the fifteenth of July, 2013. The private respondents moved for reconsideration, and the petitioners commented on that motion. The commission then issued a resolution dated the fifteenth of November, 2013.

Aggrieved, the petitioners came to the Supreme Court by certiorari, asking that the commission's decision and resolution be set aside and that a preliminary injunction issue to restrain enforcement. The petition carried a verification and certification of non-forum shopping signed by one Hernan Omecillo, but the record showed he had no authority from petitioner Vallacar Transit, Incorporated. The petition also omitted several key pleadings from the record, and the docket fees paid fell short by one hundred eighty pesos.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition should be dismissed for a defective verification and certification of non-forum shopping signed by one without authority from the corporate petitioner.
• Whether or not the petition should be dismissed for failure to attach copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent to the case.
• Whether or not the petition should be dismissed for insufficient payment of docket and other lawful fees.
• Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as quoted in the decision, provides:

The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.

This is the provision the petitioners violated by omitting the complaints, the position paper, the appeal and answer, and the reconsideration pleadings.

Section 3 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court provides:

A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established: (a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually; (b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or (c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.

This sets the grounds the petitioners failed to satisfy.

Section 5 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court provides:

No preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party or persons sought to be enjoined.

This confirms that injunctive relief is extraordinary and guarded, never issued on bare assertion.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioners failed to properly verify the petition in accordance with the amended Section 4 of Rule 7 in relation to Section 1 of Rule 65. The verification and certification was signed by Hernan Omecillo, who had no authority from petitioner Vallacar Transit, Incorporated.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioners failed to attach copies of all pleadings and documents necessary for a thorough understanding and resolution of the petition, naming the complaints, the position paper, the memorandum of appeal and answer, and the reconsideration pleadings. This violated the express requirement of Section 1 of Rule 65.

On the third issue, the Court noted that the payment of docket and other lawful fees was short by one hundred eighty pesos.

On the fourth issue, the Court denied the injunction. It described a preliminary injunction as the strong arm of equity, an extraordinary peremptory remedy to be used with extreme caution. From Sections 3 and 5 of Rule 58, the Court drew the governing standard: before a writ may issue, a clear showing must be made that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is directed are violative of an established right. The petitioners merely speculated that the private respondents might move for execution. They made no clear showing of a right warranting relief.

Doctrine

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must be verified by a proper affiant, and where the petitioner is a corporation the signatory must be duly authorized. It must be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment or resolution subject thereof and by copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and it must carry a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. Failure to comply, together with insufficient docket fees, warrants outright dismissal. A preliminary injunction requires a clear showing of a right to be protected and of acts violative of that established right; it is an extraordinary remedy issued with extreme caution, never on speculation that a judgment might later be executed.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, and the prayer for a preliminary injunction was denied.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a preliminary injunction demands a clear showing of a right to be protected and of acts violative of that established right. Examiners use this case for procedural completeness in Rule 65 petitions and for the strict requirements of injunctive relief.