PROMETHIUM MARKETING COMPANY REPRESENTED BY WILLIAM TAN, PETITIONER, V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, (NLRC) 3RD DIVISION, AND LEONARDO MANGALINDAN, RESPONDENTS.
ELBINIAS, J.:
stating that the parties had already settled the monetary award ordered
by the Labor Arbiter in NLRC NCR CASE No. 00-03-01548-2002[2], which in turn, was subject of the Petition[3] at bench. The “MANIFESTATION”[4] read as follows:
“PETITIONER, by counsel, to this Honorable Court of Appeals, respectfully manifests:
[1] In compliance to the Resolution dated October 28, 2009
directing herein parties to manifest, whether or not supervening events
have transpired that would render the resolution of the Petition in the
above-captioned case moot and academic.[2] The petitioner hereby manifests that the parties have
already settled the monetary award under the judgment, per document
hereto attached as Annex ‘A’.PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court of Appeals that the foregoing manifestation be noted.”[5] (Underscoring was made in the original)
To the “MANIFESTATION”[6], petitioner attached a photocopy of the Labor Arbiter’s Order[7] dated March 21, 2006.
On February 25, 2011, a Resolution[8]
was issued directing petitioner to “furnish this Court a certified true
copy of the Order dated March 21, 2006, and to manifest the bearing or
effect that such Order may have to the instant Petition.”[9]
On April 29, 2011[10], petitioner filed an “EX-PARTE COMPLIANCE”[11] with an attached “certified xerox copy”[12] of the Labor Arbiter’s Order[13] dated March 21, 2006. However, petitioner failed to manifest the bearing or effect of such Order to the Petition[14] at bench.
Because of this, a Resolution[15] dated August 8, 2011 was issued directing petitioner to show cause why its Petition[16] should not be dismissed for its failure to comply with the lawful order of the Court. The Resolution[17] stated the following:
“Petitioner’s Compliance dated March 20, 2011 submitting a
certified photocopy of the Labor Arbiter’s March 21, 2006 Order is
NOTED. Petitioner, however, having failed to manifest, as
required by the February 25, 2011 Resolution, the bearing or effect such
Order would have on the Petition, petitioner is directed to SHOW CAUSE
within 10 days from notice why the petition should not be dismissed for
the failure to fully comply with a lawful order of this Court.The report of the Judicial Records Division that no comment had
been filed by the private respondent to petitioner’s Manifestation filed
on April 13, 2010 is NOTED.”[18] (Emphasis Supplied)
Petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Ricardo C. Pilares, Jr.[19], received a copy[20] of the Resolution[21] dated August 8, 2011, through a certain Gina Tanjutco[22], on August 31, 2011.[23] However, petitioner again failed to comply with Our Resolution[24] of August 8, 2011.
Petitioner’s failure to fully comply with Our earlier Resolutions of February 25, 2011[25] and August 8, 2011[26]
amounts to a refusal to obey not only one, but two Orders of this
Court. This refusal by petitioner to obey the Orders of this Court also
constitutes a ground for the dismissal of its Petition under Rule 17,
Section 3 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
“SEC. 3 – Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff.- If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails xxx to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court’s own motion,
without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his
counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall
have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits unless otherwise
declared by the court.” (Italics was made in the original, emphasis supplied)
Hence, We have no choice but to abide by the Rules.
IN VIEW OF ALL THESE, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Dicdican (Chairperson) and Paredes, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 375-378
[2] Order dated March 21, 2006, Rollo, pp. 377-378
[3] [WITH APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION], Rollo, pp. 2-24
[4] Rollo, pp. 375-378
[5] Rollo, pp. 375-376
[6] Rollo, pp. 375-378
[7] Rollo, pp. 377-378
[8] Rollo, pp. 380-381
[9] Rollo, p. 381
[10] Rollo, p. 382
[11] Rollo, pp. 382-383
[12] Rollo, p. 384
[13] Rollo, pp. 384-385
[14] [WITH APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION], Rollo, pp. 2-24
[15] Rollo, p. 387
[16] [WITH APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION], Rollo, pp. 2-24
[17] Rollo, p. 387
[18] Rollo, p. 387
[19] Rollo, pp. 383, 387
[20] Registered Letter No. MMS-975, Rollo, p. 387
[21] Rollo, p. 387
[22] Rollo, p. 389
[23] Rollo, p. 389
[24] Rollo, p. 387
[25] Rollo, pp. 380-381
[26] Rollo, p. 387