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…

Mariano versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Mariano Gan, Junior, Arnold Gabua, and Pedro Fiedacan, Junior against the National Labor Relations Commission, the foreign employer Wu Kong Pte Limited, and its officers Nobuo Koshiba and Makoto Yoshida. The petitioners sought to reverse the labor tribunal's resolutions, but the Supreme Court never reached the merits. The case matters because it is a clean teaching vehicle on the strict, even unforgiving, application of the procedural requirements for a petition for certiorari under Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, and on why the Court will dismiss outright rather than relax those rules.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing two resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission dated October 27, 2014 and November 28, 2014. Before filing, they asked the Court for an extension of time. In a resolution promulgated on February 18, 2015, the Court granted them fifteen additional days from February 2, 2015, or until February 17, 2015, within which to file the petition. The petitioners instead filed their petition on February 25, 2015. The Court resolved the petition directly, dismissing it outright on procedural grounds.

Facts

The petitioners obtained from the Supreme Court a fifteen-day extension, counted from February 2, 2015, to file a petition for certiorari. That gave them until February 17, 2015. They filed their petition on February 25, 2015, eight days beyond the period the Court had allowed.

The petition itself carried further defects. It failed to state the actual addresses of the petitioners and of the private respondents. The copies of the two National Labor Relations Commission resolutions attached to it appeared to be mere photocopies of the original rather than clearly legible duplicate originals or certified true copies.

The Court noted all three lapses and treated them as sufficient grounds for dismissal under the Rules of Court, declining to overlook them in the name of substantial justice.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for certiorari, filed beyond the extension period granted by the Court, should be dismissed outright.
• Whether or not the petition's failure to state the actual addresses of the petitioners and respondents warrants dismissal.
• Whether or not the attachment of mere photocopies, instead of duplicate originals or certified true copies, of the assailed resolutions warrants dismissal.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, on the contents and attachments of a petition for certiorari, provides:

The petition shall contain the actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents.

This provision supplies the first content requirement the petition violated by omitting the actual addresses of the parties.

The same Section 3, Rule 46 provides on the required attachments:

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 provision is the basis for rejecting the mere photocopies of the assailed National Labor Relations Commission resolutions.

Section 3, Rule 46 further provides on the consequence of non-compliance:

Non-compliance with any of the requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

This is the provision the Court invoked to justify dismissal outright rather than a mere opportunity to cure.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition was filed beyond the period it had granted. The extension ran only until February 17, 2015, and the petition came on February 25, 2015. It was therefore late.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petition failed to state the actual addresses of the petitioners and the private respondents, contrary to Section 3, Rule 46.

On the third issue, the Court held that the copies of the October 27, 2014 and November 28, 2014 resolutions attached to the petition appeared to be mere photocopies of the original, contrary to the same Section 3, Rule 46, which requires a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy.

The Court stressed that it could not ignore these procedural infirmities, because Section 3, Rule 46 explicitly makes non-compliance with any of its requirements a sufficient ground for dismissal. It balanced this against the purpose of procedure, explaining that technical rules are not designed to frustrate the end of justice but to effect the prompt, proper, and orderly disposition of cases and to prevent the clogging of court dockets.

Doctrine

A petition for certiorari must comply strictly with Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. It must be filed within the period granted, must state the actual addresses of all petitioners and respondents, and must be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed judgment, order, resolution, or ruling. Non-compliance with any of these requirements is a sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition. The Court will not routinely relax procedural rules, because they serve the prompt, proper, and orderly disposition of cases and prevent the clogging of court dockets.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari outright for non-compliance with the Rules, and the private respondents prevailed without any ruling on the merits.

Remember This

Memorize the line that non-compliance with any requirement of Section 3, Rule 46 is a sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition. Examiners use this case to test the mandatory contents and attachments of a petition for certiorari, the strictness of the reglementary and extended periods, and the limits of the liberal construction of procedural rules.