DST DAESUNG TRANS AND TOURS AND JANG WON SEO, PETITIONERS, V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), PRUDENCIO A. BOHOL, JR., AND ADELMO A. ABLAO, RESPONDENTS.

DST Daesung Trans and Tours versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a petition brought by DST Daesung Trans and Tours and its officer Jang Won Seo against the National Labor Relations Commission, together with private respondents Prudencio Bohol, Junior and Adelmo Ablao. The petitioners sought to overturn the labor tribunal's ruling against them, but the Supreme Court never reached the merits. The case matters because it is a clean lesson in procedural discipline: a petition that fails to perfect its verification and certification against forum shopping, and that ignores a direct order of the Court to cure the defect, is dismissed outright — no matter how sympathetic the underlying cause may be.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing a judgment and order of the National Labor Relations Commission. On July 30, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a Resolution directing the petitioners to complete, within five days from notice, the particulars of the notary public in the notarial certificate of the petition's Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, as well as in the Affidavit of Proof of Service and Explanation. The petitioners were notified but did not comply, and offered no explanation. On December 19, 2013, the Court issued a Resolution dismissing the petition, declaring the failure a blatant display of indifference to its lawful order and rendering the petition formally defective. The petitioners moved for reconsideration on January 21, 2014, arguing that strict application of the rules would frustrate substantial justice and then discussing the merits. The private respondents filed a Comment pointing out that the motion never addressed the grounds for dismissal and never cured the defect. The Court denied the motion for lack of merit.

Facts

The petitioners, an employer and its officer, lost before the National Labor Relations Commission in a labor dispute with the two private respondents. Seeking relief, they went up to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

The petition carried a Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, an Affidavit of Proof of Service, and an Explanation. But the notarial certificates in these documents omitted the particulars of the notary public. On July 30, 2013, the Court ordered the petitioners to complete those particulars within five days from notice.

The petitioners did not comply, and gave no explanation. The Court dismissed the petition on December 19, 2013. In their motion for reconsideration, the petitioners did not cure the defect or justify the delay; instead they argued that procedural rules are tools to facilitate justice and then argued the merits. The private respondents countered that the motion merely duplicated the dismissed petition. The Court denied reconsideration.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition should be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's Resolution directing completion of the notarial particulars, in violation of Section 2, Rule VIII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Whether or not the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, which offered no valid reason for non-compliance and made no effort to cure the defect, should be granted on the ground that strict application of the rules would frustrate substantial justice.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2, Rule VIII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides:

A notary public shall not perform a notarial act outside his regular place of work or business; provided, however, that on certain exceptional occasions or situations, a notarial act may be performed at the request of the parties in the following sites located within his territorial jurisdiction.

The Court cited this provision because the defective notarial certificates failed to comply with the requirements governing notarial acts, rendering the petition formally defective.

Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

The Court cited this provision because the petition for certiorari must be verified, and the defective verification and certification meant the petition did not satisfy this requirement.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition was properly dismissed. The petitioners failed to comply with the July 30, 2013 Resolution despite notice, and offered no explanation. The Court characterized this as a blatant display of indifference to its lawful order and declared the petition formally defective for failure to comply with Section 2, Rule VIII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

On the second issue, the Court denied reconsideration for lack of merit. The petitioners gave no valid and compelling reason to reverse the dismissal, and made no effort to comply with the earlier Resolution even in their motion. Their plea that strict application of the rules would frustrate substantial justice did not move the Court, because the defect was never cured and the disobedience was never explained. The Court's reasoning rests on the requirement that a certiorari petition be verified:

a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

A petition whose verification and certification are defective is not the verified petition the Rule demands.

Doctrine

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must be a verified petition, and its Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping must comply with the notarial requirements, including Section 2, Rule VIII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. A defective verification and certification renders the petition formally defective. When the Court orders a party to cure such a defect within a fixed period and the party fails to comply despite notice, without explanation, the petition is dismissed for indifference to a lawful order of the Court. The rule that procedural rules are tools to facilitate justice does not rescue a petitioner who neither cures the defect nor justifies the non-compliance; the plea of substantial justice cannot substitute for obedience to the Court's directive.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit, leaving the December 19, 2013 Resolution dismissing the petition in force, so the private respondents prevailed.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a defective verification and certification against forum shopping makes a Rule 65 petition formally defective, and failure to cure it despite a Court order, without explanation, is a blatant display of indifference warranting dismissal. Examiners use this case to test whether a candidate knows that the liberal application of procedural rules has limits, and that substantial justice cannot be invoked to excuse disobedience to a lawful order of the Court.