ABAPO, FAUSTINO ALIGANGA, DOROTEO ABELLA, FIDEL AVANCEÑA, FERMIN AGUIRRE, ROMEO AMANDORON, FRANCISCO AREÑO, FELIPE ARGOMIDO, VIRGILIO BLASABAS, CERINO BARLISO, AGAPITO BASACA, C…

Abapo versus San Miguel Corporation

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by one hundred twenty former employees of San Miguel Corporation against the company, arising from the termination of their employment at the Mandaue Brewery Plant. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to reverse the Court of Appeals, which had dismissed their special civil action for certiorari on technical grounds. The case matters for two reasons: it is a stern lesson on the mandatory contents of a petition filed under Rule 65, and it confirms, on the merits, that the installation of labor-saving devices is a valid ground for terminating employment and that the quitclaims signed by the affected workers are binding.

Procedural History

The employees first filed two separate complaints with the Labor Arbiter, alleging an illegal mass lay-off and praying for backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and other benefits. The two cases were jointly heard, and the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.

The petitioners then went up to the Court of Appeals by a special civil action for certiorari, which they erroneously denominated a petition for review on certiorari. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition because they failed to attach a certified true copy of the assailed Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission, and because they filed the petition beyond the reglementary period. Their motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, they filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

The petitioners were former employees of San Miguel Corporation, hired on different dates and assigned to the company's Mandaue Brewery Plant. Sometime in 1991, the company conducted a viability study of its business operations and adopted a modernization program. It brought into the Mandaue plant high-speed machines for the manufacture of beer and installed them in bottling lines 6 and 7. The main line operation, known as lines 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, ceased to operate, and as a consequence several functions of the employees were declared redundant.

On February 13, 1992, the company sent two letters to the Department of Labor and Employment, Region VII, informing it that it was terminating the services of the employees named in the attached list. It also sent notices to the affected employees informing them that they would be given separation pay amounting to 175 percent of their respective monthly salaries for every year of service, a three-year free hospitalization coverage, and free training and consultation for livelihood programs and small-scale business enterprises, as well as assistance in local and overseas job placements. The employees received these amounts and executed their respective quitclaims before the officers of Region VII of the Department of Labor and Employment.

Two years later, the employees filed complaints with the Labor Arbiter, alleging that the company did not institute a modernization program and had therefore committed an illegal mass lay-off. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints, and the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed. The Court of Appeals then dismissed their petition on technical grounds, and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the petition for failure to attach a certified true copy of the assailed Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the petition for having been filed seven days beyond the reglementary period.
• Whether or not the termination of the petitioners' employment on the ground of the installation of labor-saving devices was valid, and whether or not the quitclaims they signed are binding.

Applicable Provisions

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

Section 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. 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 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 was received. It shall be filed in seven clearly legible copies together with proof of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy intended for the court intended as such by the petitioner and 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. The certification shall be accomplished by the proper clerk of court or by his duly authorized representative, or by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or by his duly authorized representative. The other requisite number of copies of the petition shall be accompanied by clearly legible plain copies of all documents attached to the original. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

This provision is the very basis for the dismissal, because it makes a certified true copy of the challenged resolution indispensable and expressly authorizes dismissal for non-compliance.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion. The Rule is clear, and failure to comply with the requirement that the petition be accompanied by a certified true copy of the resolution being challenged is a sufficient ground for dismissal. Counsel's excuse that voluminous documents tend to leave out vital pieces of evidence was rejected; the matter merely involved his capability in organizing the pleadings, and had he been more assiduous in his duty to his clients, the petition would not have been dismissed.

On the second issue, the Court noted that the petitioners themselves accepted the finding of the Court of Appeals that the petition was filed seven days late. That admission sufficed to sustain the dismissal.

On the third issue, the Court held that even granting that the petition was in order, it was still dismissible. In a similar case involving the same issue, the validity of the termination of San Miguel employees at the Mandaue Brewery, the Court had held that the installation of labor-saving devices by the company at the Mandaue plant was a proper ground for terminating employment. The quitclaims and releases, signed by the employees concerned as reasonable settlements, are binding upon the parties.

Doctrine

First, a petition filed under Rule 65 must be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof. Failure to comply with any of the requirements of Section 3 of Rule 46 is a sufficient ground for dismissal, and the Court will not excuse such failure on the ground that the documents were voluminous.

Second, the reglementary period for filing the petition is mandatory, and a delay in filing, admitted by the petitioner, sustains the dismissal of the petition.

Third, the installation of labor-saving devices is a proper ground for terminating employment, and the quitclaims and releases signed by the affected employees as reasonable settlements are binding upon the parties.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated January 25, 2000 and March 7, 2000 were affirmed in toto, with costs against the petitioners.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that failure to attach a certified true copy of the challenged resolution is a sufficient ground for dismissing a petition under Rule 65, and that the installation of labor-saving devices is a valid ground for termination with binding quitclaims. Examiners like to use this case on the mandatory contents of a petition for certiorari and on the validity of redundancy and labor-saving devices as grounds for terminating employment.