AGAPITO CRUZ FIEL, AVELINO QUIMSON REYES AND ROY CONALES BONBON, PETITIONERS, VS. KRIS SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, RESP…

Fiel versus Kris Security Systems

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by three security guards, Agapito Fiel, Avelino Reyes, and Roy Bonbon, together with a fourth co-worker, Diomedes Uray, against their former employer, Kris Security Systems, Incorporated, and against the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals that dismissed their petition for certiorari purely on a procedural ground: only three of the four named petitioners signed the verification and certification against forum shopping. The case matters because it is the Court's clean statement that the rules of procedure are tools to facilitate justice, not traps to defeat it, and that a litigant who faithfully complies with the rules should not be made to suffer for the default of a co-party.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding that the complainants had been constructively dismissed and ordered their reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, with full back wages. The private respondent appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, which set aside the Labor Arbiter's decision and dismissed the complaints for illegal dismissal for lack of merit. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied.

The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on the ground that it violated Section 5, Rule 7, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, because only three of the four petitioners signed the mandatory verification and certification against forum shopping. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. The petitioners came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

The petitioners were employed by Kris Security Systems, Incorporated, as security guards and were assigned posts at the Dunkin Donut Imus Central Kitchen Department in Imus, Cavite. On different dates in October 1998, the private respondent terminated the services of the petitioners.

On 13 October 1998, the petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission. The private respondent contended that it did not dismiss the petitioners, but that they were pulled out from their assignments at the request of the client.

The Labor Arbiter found that the complainants had indeed been constructively dismissed and directed their reinstatement with full back wages. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission set aside that decision and dismissed the complaints. When the petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, that court dismissed the petition because only three of the four petitioners had signed the verification and certification against forum shopping. The fourth named petitioner, Diomedes Uray, did not sign, and his name was not deleted from the petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals acted correctly when it dismissed the petition for certiorari on the technical ground that only three of the four named petitioners signed the verification and certification against forum shopping.
• Whether or not the three petitioners who complied with the rules should be prejudiced by the failure of their co-petitioner to sign the verification and certification.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5, Rule 7, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

This is the provision the Court of Appeals applied when it dismissed the petition, and the provision the Supreme Court construes in granting relief.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition outright on the technical ground. The greater interest of justice would be served if the petition for certiorari were adjudicated on its merits with respect to the three petitioners who signed the verification and certification against forum shopping.

On the second issue, the Court held that the three petitioners who faithfully observed the rules mandated in Section 5, Rule 7, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure by signing the requisite verification and certification should not be unduly prejudiced by the fault of their co-petitioner, who apparently had lost interest in pursuing his case. To make them all pay for the failure of their co-petitioner would be unjust.

The Court stressed that the technical rules of procedure should be used to promote, not frustrate, the cause of justice. While the swift unclogging of court dockets is a laudable aim, the just resolution of cases on their merits cannot be sacrificed merely to achieve that objective. Rules of procedure are tools designed not to thwart but to facilitate the attainment of justice; thus, their strict and rigid application may, for good and deserving reasons, have to give way to, and be subordinated by, the need to aptly dispense substantial justice in the normal course.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the requirement of a verification and certification against forum shopping under Section 5, Rule 7, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is a procedural rule that must be applied to promote, not frustrate, substantial justice. Second, where some but not all of the named petitioners sign the verification and certification, the compliant petitioners should not be prejudiced by the default of a co-petitioner; the petition may be given due course as to those who complied. Third, rules of procedure are tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, and their strict and rigid application may, for good and deserving reasons, give way to the need to dispense substantial justice.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the assailed resolutions of the Court of Appeals were set aside, and the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for adjudication on the merits of the petition before it.

Remember This

Memorize this line: rules of procedure are tools designed not to thwart but to facilitate the attainment of justice, so a compliant petitioner should not pay for a co-petitioner's procedural default. Examiners use this case in civil procedure and labor law to test the relaxation of technical rules and the treatment of a defective verification and certification against forum shopping.