MITCHELLE M. BARREDO, PETITIONER, VS. 5TH ACCESS GENERAL MERCHANDISE/ GETER MARC MELLIJOR/GLOBELYN ECONAS AND NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS

Barredo versus 5th Access General Merchandise

The Case

This is Mitchelle M. Barredo versus 5th Access General Merchandise, Geter Marc Mellijor, Globelyn Econas, and the National Labor Relations Commission. The petitioner, Barredo, filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, asking the Supreme Court to nullify and annul the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission dated September 16, 2013, and its Resolutions dated October 31, 2013 and November 28, 2013. The case matters because it is a remedial law decision: the Court never reached the merits of the labor dispute, and instead dismissed the petition outright for procedural defects. It is a reminder that a petition for certiorari stands or falls on strict compliance with the Rules.

Procedural History

The case originated in the labor tribunals. It reached the National Labor Relations Commission, which issued a Decision dated September 16, 2013, and then Resolutions dated October 31, 2013 and November 28, 2013. From these, Barredo went directly to the Supreme Court by a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeking to nullify and annul those issuances. The Supreme Court, upon a perusal of the petition, found several infirmities and dismissed the petition outright. The Court also declared it no longer necessary to resolve the Ex Parte Motion to Declare Pauper Litigant.

Facts

Barredo filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court before the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify and annul the Decision dated September 16, 2013 and the Resolutions dated October 31, 2013 and November 28, 2013 of the National Labor Relations Commission.

A perusal of the petition revealed several infirmities. First, the petitioner failed to indicate the material date showing when notice of the September 16, 2013 Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission was received. Second, the petitioner failed to comply with the requirement on proper proof of service of the petition to the adverse party and the agency a quo, because he failed to attach the pertinent registry receipts. Third, the petitioner failed to attach copies of all pleadings and documents necessary for a thorough understanding and resolution of the petition, such as the private respondents' Position Paper, including its annexes, filed before the Regional Arbitration Branch Number Seven of the National Labor Relations Commission, and the private respondents' Answer to the Memorandum on Appeal filed with the National Labor Relations Commission.

Fourth, while the petitioner's counsel, Attorney Daniel Francis D. Arguedo, indicated his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Compliance Certificate Number and its date of issuance, he failed to indicate the covering compliance period. Fifth, the petitioner failed to attach the Affidavit of a disinterested person to support his prayer to be declared a pauper litigant. A Joint Affidavit dated March 10, 2014 was attached to the Ex Parte Motion to Declare Pauper Litigant, but it pertained to another person, and not to the petitioner.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for certiorari may be dismissed outright for failure to indicate the material date showing when notice of the National Labor Relations Commission Decision was received.
• Whether or not the petition may be dismissed for failure to comply with the requirement on proper proof of service to the adverse party and the agency a quo.
• Whether or not the petition may be dismissed for failure to attach copies of all pleadings and documents necessary for a thorough understanding and resolution of the petition.
• Whether or not the petition may be dismissed for failure to indicate the covering compliance period in the counsel's Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Compliance Certificate.
• Whether or not the petition may be dismissed for failure to attach the Affidavit of a disinterested person in support of the prayer to be declared a pauper litigant.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

The petition shall contain the full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of the matters involved, the factual background of the case, and the grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for. In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution, subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received.

This is the provision the petitioner violated by failing to state when notice of the September 16, 2013 Decision was received.

Section 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with section 7 of this Rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.

This is the provision the petitioner violated by failing to attach the pertinent registry receipts.

Section 1, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.

This is the provision the petitioner violated by failing to attach copies of all pleadings and documents necessary for a thorough understanding and resolution of the petition.

Section 3, Rule 46 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

This is the provision that authorized the outright dismissal of the petition.

Ruling

The Court resolved all the issues in one stroke: the foregoing noted defects warrant an outright dismissal of the instant petition. On the first issue, the petitioner failed to indicate the material date showing when notice of the September 16, 2013 Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission was received, in violation of Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. On the second issue, the petitioner failed to comply with the requirement on proper proof of service of the petition to the adverse party and the agency a quo, as he failed to attach the pertinent registry receipts, in violation of Section 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. On the third issue, the petitioner failed to attach copies of all pleadings and documents necessary for a thorough understanding and resolution of the petition. On the fourth issue, counsel indicated his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Compliance Certificate Number and its date of issuance, but failed to indicate the covering compliance period, in violation of Bar Matter Number 1922 dated September 2, 2008. On the fifth issue, the petitioner failed to attach the Affidavit of a disinterested person to support his prayer to be declared a pauper litigant, in violation of Section 19, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court; the Joint Affidavit dated March 10, 2014 attached to the Ex Parte Motion pertained to another person, and not to the petitioner. The Court held that these defects warrant outright dismissal, and found it no longer necessary to resolve the Ex Parte Motion to Declare Pauper Litigant.

Doctrine

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must strictly comply with the requirements of the Rules. The petition must indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment, final order, or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed, and when notice of the denial thereof was received. Proof of service by registered mail must be made by affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The petition must be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order, or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. Counsel must indicate the covering compliance period of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Compliance Certificate. A prayer to be declared a pauper litigant must be supported by the Affidavit of a disinterested person. And under Section 3, Rule 46, the failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed outright for the procedural defects noted by the Court.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. Examiners use this case in remedial law to test the material dates requirement, proof of service by registered mail, and the supporting papers that must accompany a Rule 65 petition.