MARIANO GAN, JR., ARNOLD GABUA AND PEDRO FIEDACAN, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), WU KONG PTE LTD., NOBUO KOSHIBA AND MAKOTO YOSHIDA, RESPONDE…

The present Petition for Certiorari^[1] filed on February 25, 2015 should be summarily dismissed as it suffers from the following procedural lapses.

First, in a Resolution^[2] promulgated on February 18, 2015, this Court granted petitioners an extension of fifteen (15) days from February 2, 2015 or until February 17, 2015 within which to file a petition for certiorari. Hence, the present petition filed on February 25, 2015 was filed beyond the period granted by this Court.

Second, the petition failed to state the actual addresses of petitioners and private respondents, contrary to Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, which provides that the petition shall contain the actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents.

Third, copies of the October 27, 2014 and November 28, 2014 Resolutions of the NLRC attached to the petition appear to be mere photocopies of the original, contrary to Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, which provides that the petition 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.

This Court cannot ignore the foregoing procedural infirmities, as Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly provides that non-compliance with any of the requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. It bears stressing that technical rules of procedure are not designed to frustrate the end of justice, but are provided to effect the prompt, proper and orderly disposition of cases and thus, effectively prevent the clogging of court dockets.^[3]

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is DISMISSED outright for non-compliance with the Rules.

SO ORDERED.

Baltazar-Padilla, P.J., and Inting, S.B., JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Rollo pp. 11-21.

^[2] Id. at pp. 9-10.

^[3] See Lapid vs. Laurea, 391 SCRA 277, 285-286 (2002).