GATA DAKU MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, PETITIONER, VS. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (8TH DIVISION), NOEL H. PANDERO, IRIS R. MARTIZANO, RAEGIL KEN A. TAMPARONG, ELMA D.…

Gata Daku Multi-Purpose Cooperative versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is Gata Daku Multi-Purpose Cooperative against the National Labor Relations Commission, joined by Noel Pandero, Iris Martizano, Raegil Ken Tamparong, Elma and other private respondents. The cooperative comes before the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, seeking to set aside the resolutions of the labor tribunal. The case matters less for the merits of the labor dispute than for what it teaches about procedure: when the Court will relax the technical rules of procedure in the interest of substantial justice, and when it will not. It is a short decision, but a memorable one, because the Court first threw the petition out on technical grounds, then took it back.

Procedural History

The dispute began before a labor arbiter, whose decision the cooperative challenged before the National Labor Relations Commission. The Commission issued a resolution dated the thirty-first of October, 2013, which the cooperative moved to reconsider. The Commission denied that motion, and the cooperative then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari.

On the sixth of March, 2014, the Supreme Court denied due course to the petition on three technical grounds. First, there was no written explanation why the petition was filed and served by mail, in violation of Section 11 of Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Second, the material dates were incompletely alleged, because the date of receipt of the assailed resolution and the date of filing of the motion for reconsideration were not indicated, in violation of Section 3 of Rule 46. Third, material portions of the record were not attached, namely the motion for reconsideration filed before the Commission, the complaint filed before the labor arbiter, and the decision rendered there, in violation of the same Section 3 of Rule 46.

The cooperative filed a motion for reconsideration, pleading for the relaxation of the technical rules and curing the defects. The Court granted the motion and reinstated the petition.

Facts

The cooperative was the employer party in a labor case brought by the private respondents. The labor arbiter rendered a decision, and the cooperative elevated the matter to the National Labor Relations Commission. The Commission ruled against the cooperative in a resolution dated the thirty-first of October, 2013, and denied the cooperative's motion for reconsideration.

Aggrieved, the cooperative filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The petition, however, was mailed rather than personally filed and served, and it carried no written explanation for that mode of service. It also failed to state completely the material dates, omitting the date it received the assailed resolution and the date it filed its motion for reconsideration. And it did not attach the motion for reconsideration, the complaint, and the labor arbiter's decision.

On the sixth of March, 2014, the Court denied due course to the petition on these three grounds. The cooperative moved for reconsideration, this time rectifying the defects and asking the Court to relax the rules in the interest of justice.

Issues

• Whether or not the Supreme Court may relax the technical rules of procedure and reinstate a petition for certiorari that was denied due course for procedural defects.
• Whether or not the defects in the petition were cured by the petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Applicable Provisions

Section 11 of Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, on service by mail, provides:

Priorities in modes of service and filing. Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed.

The petition was filed and served by mail without the required written explanation, which was the first ground for denying it due course.

Section 3 of Rule 46, on the contents and filing of a petition for certiorari, provides in its second paragraph:

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 42.

The petition failed to allege the material dates completely and failed to attach the pertinent documents, which were the second and third grounds for denial.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the law abhors technicalities that impede the cause of justice. The primary function of procedural rules is to pursue and not defeat the ends of justice. The Court found compelling reasons in the circumstances of the case to disregard the petitioner's procedural lapses and to allow it to properly present its case, in order to pursue the ends of justice.

On the second issue, the Court noted that in its motion for reconsideration the petitioner had rectified the defects earlier noted. On that basis, the Court granted the motion and reinstated the petition for certiorari. The Court was careful to state that it was not thereby giving due course to the petition. Instead, it directed the respondents to file a comment, and not a motion to dismiss, within ten days from notice, to which the petitioner could file a reply within five days from receipt of the comment.

Doctrine

First, procedural rules are instruments of justice, not traps for the unwary. Their primary function is to pursue and not defeat the ends of justice, and the Court may relax them where compelling reasons appear and substantial justice so requires.

Second, a party seeking the relaxation of the rules should cure its procedural defects. Here the petitioner rectified the defects in its motion for reconsideration, and that cure supported the reinstatement of the petition.

Third, reinstatement is not the same as giving due course. The Court may reinstate a petition and order the respondents to comment without yet resolving the merits, preserving the ordinary course of adversarial proceedings.

Disposition

The Court granted the motion for reconsideration, reinstated the petition for certiorari, and directed the respondents to file a comment within ten days, with the petitioner allowed to reply within five days.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the law abhors technicalities that impede the cause of justice, and that the primary function of procedural rules is to pursue and not defeat the ends of justice. Examiners use this case when testing the relaxation of procedural rules, the cure of defects by motion for reconsideration, and the distinction between reinstating a petition and giving it due course.