ILIGAN CONCRETE PRODUCTS, AND/OR THE MANAGER, PETITIONER, VS. ANASTACIO MAGADAN, RESPONDENT.

Iligan Concrete Products versus Magadan

The Case

This is a petition brought by Iligan Concrete Products, a business engaged in the hauling and delivery of sand and gravel in Iligan City, against Anastacio Magadan, a former collector in its employ. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to annul an order of the Ministry of Labor which affirmed a finding that an employer-employee relationship existed between the parties from September 15, 1973 to July 15, 1981, and which granted the respondent's claims for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and underpayment of emergency cost of living allowance. The case matters less for the labor dispute itself than for what it teaches about the discipline of pleading in a petition for certiorari: that a petition which fails to state the facts with certainty and to attach the challenged orders is fatally defective, and that a court cannot be expected to guess what the pleader intended.

Procedural History

On July 22, 1981, the private respondent filed a claim against the petitioner with the District Office of the Ministry of Labor and Employment in Iligan City, for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and underpayment of emergency cost of living allowance. The Hearing Officer of the Iligan District Office issued an order granting the claim. The Ministry of Labor affirmed that order in full. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, and the Ministry of Labor denied the motion in its order dated February 28, 1984, maintaining the order of May 13, 1983.

The petitioner then came to the Supreme Court by a petition denominated a Brief for the Petitioner, seeking to annul the February 28, 1984 order. The Court required the Solicitor General, representing the public respondent, to comment rather than to move for dismissal. The Court initially gave due course to the petition and required simultaneous memoranda, which the parties submitted. Ultimately, however, the Court recalled its resolution giving due course and dismissed the petition.

Facts

The petitioner hired Anastacio Magadan as a collector in February 1971. He served in that capacity until his voluntary resignation, effective at the close of office hours on September 15, 1973.

Nearly eight years later, on July 22, 1981, Magadan filed a claim with the District Office of the Ministry of Labor and Employment in Iligan City, alleging illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and underpayment of emergency cost of living allowance. He claimed that although he had resigned in 1973, he was subsequently re-employed by the petitioner through Nap Lluch, the owner-proprietor, and that his name appeared on the payrolls from September 30, 1973 to July 15, 1981. The petitioner, he asserted, failed to produce records to refute this.

The Hearing Officer granted the claim, and the Ministry of Labor affirmed. The petitioner sought relief from the Supreme Court, but its petition did not clearly state the orders it sought to annul and did not attach certified true copies of those orders. Instead, it reproduced on its first page only the February 28, 1984 order denying reconsideration, and argued that this was substantial compliance.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition is fatally defective for failure to comply with the requirements of Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, in that it did not allege the facts with certainty and did not attach certified true copies of the orders sought to be reviewed.
• Whether or not the reproduction of the February 28, 1984 order on the first page of the petition constitutes substantial compliance with the Rules.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which the Court applies to test the sufficiency of the petition, provides:

Section 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board or officer exercising 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, nor 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. 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.

The provision bears on the case because the petitioner neither alleged the facts with certainty nor attached the certified true copies of the orders it sought to annul, which the Court held to be a fatal defect.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the Solicitor General that the petition is fatally defective. The petitioner failed to allege the facts with certainty, did not clearly state in the petition the orders sought to be annulled, and did not attach certified true copies of those orders and the pertinent documents.

On the second issue, the Court held that there was no substantial compliance. The petitioner sought to justify the omission by claiming that reproducing the February 28, 1984 order on the first page of the petition was substantial compliance in lieu of attaching the order of the Minister of Labor. The Court rejected this, because that order merely stated that the motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit and that the May 13, 1983 order sought to be reconsidered was maintained. The Court explained that while it may consider substantial compliance with the Rules as sufficient, it cannot be claimed here, because without the text of the orders sought to be annulled, the Court cannot be expected to act on the petition. As the Court held in Canete versus Wislizenus:

The Court is not obliged to know what the plaintiff's cause of action is and select what the court presumes the pleader intended to allege.

The Court therefore recalled its resolution giving due course to the petition and dismissed it for being insufficient in form and substance.

Doctrine

A petition for certiorari under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court must allege the facts with certainty and must be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order, or resolution subject thereof, along with copies of all relevant pleadings and documents. These are mandatory requirements, not mere technicalities, because without the text of the challenged orders the reviewing court cannot intelligently act on the petition. Substantial compliance may be accepted in appropriate cases, but it cannot be invoked where the pleader omits the very orders sought to be annulled and supplies only an order that merely denies reconsideration and maintains an earlier order. The Court will not speculate on the pleader's cause of action or supply what the pleader failed to allege.

Disposition

The Court recalled its resolution giving due course to the petition and dismissed the petition for being insufficient in form and substance, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a petition for certiorari that fails to allege the facts with certainty and to attach certified true copies of the challenged orders is fatally defective, and the Court is not obliged to guess what the pleader intended. Examiners use this case to test the mandatory requirements of Section 1, Rule 65 and the limits of substantial compliance in petitions for certiorari.