ERNESTO T. REYES, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SAN MIGUEL FOODS INC., “FEEDS BUSINESS”; DR. NORMAN C. RAMOS – GENERAL MANAGER, RESPONDENTS.

Reyes versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari brought by Ernesto T. Reyes against the National Labor Relations Commission, San Miguel Foods Incorporated under its Feeds Business, and Doctor Norman C. Ramos as General Manager. Reyes asks the Supreme Court to set aside the rulings of the labor tribunals in his labor dispute, but the decision never reaches the merits. The Court dismisses the petition outright for procedural defects. The case matters because it is a clean teaching vehicle on the strict, non-negotiable requirements for filing a petition for certiorari: proof of service, proper verification, and a complete record. It shows that a petitioner who ignores these rules, without explanation, loses before he is ever heard on the substance.

Procedural History

The labor dispute began before the Labor Arbiter, who rendered a decision dated May 23, 2014. The case then went up on appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission, which issued a decision dated August 26, 2014. A motion for partial reconsideration was filed before the Commission. From the adverse rulings, Reyes went directly to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court did not remand or reach the merits; it examined the petition's form and dismissed it for non-compliance with the Rules.

Facts

Reyes was involved in a labor case against San Miguel Foods Incorporated, its Feeds Business, and Doctor Norman C. Ramos. The Labor Arbiter decided the case on May 23, 2014. Reyes elevated the matter to the National Labor Relations Commission, which rendered its decision on August 26, 2014. He then sought partial reconsideration before the Commission.

Unsuccessful before the labor tribunals, Reyes filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65. On scrutiny, the Court found the petition riddled with procedural defects. There was no proper proof of service on the adverse party and the agency below: the required affidavit of service and the corresponding registry receipts were not attached. The verification was defective under the amended rules, which require the affiant to state that he read the pleading and that the allegations are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.

Most seriously, Reyes failed to attach copies of all pleadings and documents necessary for a thorough understanding of the petition. Missing were, among others, the Audit Report, the Logbook of accepted goods, the complete Reply to the Notice to Explain, the pay slips, the private respondents' position paper and answer, a page of the Labor Arbiter's decision, and the comment to the motion for partial reconsideration. Reyes offered no explanation for any of these failures.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for certiorari may be dismissed for failure to comply with the requirement on proper proof of service under Section 13 of Rule 13.
• Whether or not the petition may be dismissed for a defective verification under Section 4 of Rule 7, as amended, in relation to Section 1 of Rule 65.
• Whether or not the petition may be dismissed for failure to attach copies of all pleadings and documents under Section 3 of Rule 46 in relation to Section 1 of Rule 65.

Applicable Provisions

Section 13 of Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on proof of service provides:

Section 13. Proof of service. Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with section 7 of this Rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.

Reyes failed to attach the required affidavit of service and registry receipts, so this provision is the first ground for dismissal.

Section 4 of Rule 7, as amended, on verification provides:

Section 4. Verification. Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit. A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his knowledge and belief. A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on information and belief, or upon knowledge, information and belief, or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.

The Court applied the amended standard requiring truth of personal knowledge or authentic records, and found Reyes's verification wanting.

Section 3 of Rule 46 on the contents and filing of a petition provides in part:

Section 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. 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 therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto.

The same provision supplies the sanction the Court invoked:

The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

Ruling

The Court resolved all three issues against Reyes and dismissed the petition. On proof of service, it held that Reyes violated Section 13 of Rule 13 because the required affidavit of service and registry receipts were not appended. On verification, it held that Reyes failed to comply with the amended Section 4 of Rule 7 in relation to Section 1 of Rule 65, which requires an affidavit that the affiant read the pleading and that the allegations are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records. On the incomplete record, the Court held that Reyes failed to attach copies of all pleadings and documents necessary for a thorough understanding of the petition, as required by Section 3 of Rule 46 in relation to Section 1 of Rule 65.

The Court acknowledged that there are exceptions to the strict observance of procedural rules in exceptional circumstances. But it found that Reyes offered no explanation at all for his non-compliance. It therefore applied the express sanction of the Rule:

The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

Doctrine

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must comply strictly with the Rules of Court, and non-compliance is a sufficient ground for dismissal. Three rules govern. First, under Section 13 of Rule 13, the petitioner must show proper proof of service, including, for service by registered mail, the affidavit of the person mailing and the registry receipt. Second, under the amended Section 4 of Rule 7, the verification must state that the affiant read the pleading and that the allegations are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records; a defective verification is treated as an unsigned pleading. Third, under Section 3 of Rule 46, the petition must be accompanied by the judgment or ruling subject thereof, the material portions of the record referred to, and other pertinent documents. The Court may relax these rules only in exceptional circumstances, and the petitioner must at least explain the lapse. Absent any explanation, dismissal follows as a matter of course.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari for failure to comply with Section 3 of Rule 46 in relation to Section 1 of Rule 65, without just cause.

Remember This

Memorize the line that failure to comply with the requirements of Section 3 of Rule 46 is a sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition. Examiners use this case to test the mandatory contents of a Rule 65 petition, proper verification, and proof of service, and to remind candidates that procedural shortcuts sink an otherwise arguable case.