PROMETHIUM MARKETING COMPANY REPRESENTED BY WILLIAM TAN, PETITIONER, V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, (NLRC) 3RD DIVISION, AND LEONARDO MANGALINDAN, RESPONDENTS.

Promethium Marketing versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is Promethium Marketing Company, represented by William Tan, against the National Labor Relations Commission, Third Division, and Leonardo Mangalindan. Promethium asks the Court of Appeals, through a petition for certiorari with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction, to set aside the labor tribunal's ruling in a case that began as a complaint for a monetary award. The case matters less for labor law than for procedure: it is a stern lesson on what happens when a litigant disobeys not one but two lawful orders of the court, and on why the Rules of Court will not bend for a party who will not answer the court.

Procedural History

The dispute began before a Labor Arbiter, who issued an order dated March 21, 2006. From that award, Promethium went up to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari, asking for a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction. While that petition was pending, Promethium filed a manifestation dated April 13, 2010, telling the Court of Appeals that the parties had already settled the monetary award, and attaching a photocopy of the Labor Arbiter's order. On February 25, 2011, the Court of Appeals directed Promethium to furnish a certified true copy of that order and to manifest its bearing or effect on the petition. Promethium filed an ex parte compliance on April 29, 2011, with a certified xerox copy attached, but again failed to state the order's bearing or effect. On August 8, 2011, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution directing Promethium to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a lawful order. Counsel received that resolution on August 31, 2011, and still Promethium did not comply. The Court of Appeals then dismissed the petition for certiorari.

Facts

Promethium had lost before the Labor Arbiter, who ordered a monetary award in favor of Leonardo Mangalindan. Promethium challenged that award before the Court of Appeals by petition for certiorari, seeking injunctive relief as well.

On April 13, 2010, Promethium filed a manifestation stating that the parties had already settled the monetary award under the judgment, and it attached a photocopy of the Labor Arbiter's order dated March 21, 2006. The Court of Appeals responded on February 25, 2011, ordering Promethium to furnish a certified true copy of that order and to manifest its bearing or effect on the pending petition.

Promethium complied only in part. On April 29, 2011, it filed an ex parte compliance with a certified xerox copy of the order, but it never explained what that order meant for the petition. The Court of Appeals then issued a resolution on August 8, 2011, directing Promethium to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed. Counsel received that resolution on August 31, 2011, yet Promethium again failed to comply. Having refused to obey two orders of the court, the petition was dismissed.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for certiorari should be dismissed for failure to comply with the lawful orders of the Court of Appeals.
• Whether or not a party's refusal to obey not one but two orders of the court constitutes a ground for dismissal under the Rules of Court.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3 of Rule 17 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails 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.

This is the provision the Court of Appeals applied, because Promethium failed to comply with the orders of February 25, 2011 and August 8, 2011.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court of Appeals held that the petition must be dismissed. Promethium failed to fully comply with the resolution of February 25, 2011, which required it to manifest the bearing or effect of the Labor Arbiter's order on the petition, and it failed again to comply with the resolution of August 8, 2011, which directed it to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed. Counsel received that second resolution on August 31, 2011, and still no compliance came.

On the second issue, the Court of Appeals held that this failure amounts to a refusal to obey not only one, but two orders of the court, and that such refusal is itself a ground for dismissal under Section 3 of Rule 17. The Court of Appeals stressed that it had no choice but to abide by the Rules, and dismissed the petition for certiorari.

Doctrine

A litigant who, for no justifiable cause, fails to comply with the Rules or with any order of the court, may have his case dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion. This is the plain command of Section 3 of Rule 17 of the Rules of Court. The dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits unless the court declares otherwise. A party's refusal to obey not one but two orders of the court is a serious infraction that leaves the court no choice but to apply the Rules. Procedure is not a mere technicality that a party may ignore at will; compliance with lawful orders is the price of being heard.

Disposition

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari, so Promethium lost and the monetary award in favor of Leonardo Mangalindan stood.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a refusal to obey not one but two orders of the court is a ground for dismissal under Section 3 of Rule 17, and the dismissal has the effect of an adjudication upon the merits. Examiners use this case to test the consequences of a party's failure to comply with court orders and the discretionary power of the court to dismiss a case for that reason.