Narciso vs.PTMC

G.R. No. 194176, September 10, 2014

LIMUELL C. NARCISO, OMAR C. MATUGUINA, ERIC MATUGUINA, AZENITH MAG-ASO, LILIBETH MASCARIÑAS, LUTGARDO OGAMA, LOLITO COLLAMAT, IRIS MATUGUINA AND ELMER BANILAD, CARLOS B. MATUGUINA, JR., BIBIANO ESTRERA, JR., PEDRO LINABOG, BOBBY ALQUEZA, SANTIAGO ATIS, MARLON DAMAYO, CASINILLO NESTRO, BERNARDITO DACAN, SABINIANO PATATAG, JOLLYBOY MONICIT, RODRIGO DAYDAY, REY ESTRERA, CRESENCIO CASIO, DOMINICO AVILA, ERVERT RICAZA, ENRIQUE PANTILGAN, JONARDEN E. GONZAGA, RENATO CASIO, BENNY BOOC, DUA CORSINO, RANILO IGOT, NARCISO PATERNO, ROBERTO RABAL, JULITO MONSALES, LEOPOLDO MONGUEZ, JR., ROWEL NEIGAS, EPIFANIO PIAMIL, LOUIE JUDILLAS AND MANUEL CENIZA, Petitioners, v. PACIFIC TRADERS & MANUFACTURING CORPORATION (PTMC)/TABOK WORKERS MULTI­PURPOSE COOPERATIVE (TWMPC), Respondents.

Petitioners were the employees of Pacific Traders Manufacturing Corporation (PTMC), a domestic corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing furniture and fixtures for export. They were hired on different dates from 1999 to 2002 and in various capacities such as framer, attacher, finisher, assembler, etc.

Tabok Workers Multi-Purpose Cooperative (TWMPC) is a cooperative duly registered with the Cooperative Development Authority among the purposes of which is "to engage in job out works of rattan and wood companies to the Pacific Rattan Manufacturing Corporation and other manufacturing companies."

The present controversy arose when the petitioners filed in 2004, complaints for illegal dismissal with money claims against PTMC and TWMPC before the Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII, NLRC, Cebu City docketed as NLRC RAB-VII Case No. 10-2076-2004 and NLRC RAB-VII Case No. 10-2047-2004.

The complaints before the NLRC RAB-VII were consolidated and jointly resolved by the Labor Arbiter (LA) in its Decision dated July 21, 2005. The LA ruled that the petitioners were not illegally dismissed. However, TWMPC was directed to pay their separation pay as well as the amount of benefits due them as members of the cooperative. The LA declared that the petitioners were not employees of PTMC which was accordingly discharged from any liability. The LA dismissed the petitioners' money claims for lack of factual basis.

The petitioners and TWMPC appealed to the NLRC. In its Order dated February 22, 2006, the NLRC dismissed both appeals outright for failure to attach the requisite Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. The NLRC reasoned that appeal is a mere statutory privilege and the period and manner for its perfection are not only mandatory but also jurisdictional.

Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the foregoing order. They also submitted a Motion to Admit Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping pleading for a liberal application of procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice.

The CA dismissed the petition upon finding that the petitioners failed to file the certificate of non-forum shopping within the reglementary period of filing a Memorandum of Appeal. Instead, they belatedly submitted the same in their motion for reconsideration of the NLRC resolution dismissing their appeal. The CA also ruled that the petitioners failed to cite any compelling reason which will warrant a relaxation of procedural rules. The CA stressed that the petitioners were not denied their right to appeal because it is actually a mere statutory privilege which must be perfected in the manner provided by law. The CA reiterated the NLRC's ruling that rules on perfection of appeal are not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well.

Issue: Whether or not there is compelling reason to which the court will warrant a relaxation to the procedure of rules in the instant case?

Held:

A certificate of non-forum shopping is a requisite for the perfection of an appeal. This is clearly enunciated in Section 4, Rule VI of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC (2005 NLRC Rules), thus:

Sec. 4. Requisites For Perfection Of Appeal. - a) The appeal shall be: 1) filed within the reglementary period provided in Section 1 of this Rule; 2) verified by the appellant himself in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, as amended; 3) in the form of a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof, the relief prayed for, and with a statement of the date the appellant received the appealed decision, resolution or order; 4) in three (3) legibly typewritten or printed copies; and 5) accompanied by i) proof of payment of the required appeal fee; ii) posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; iii) a certificate of non-forum shopping; and iv) proof of service upon the other parties.

The petitioners aver that the CA should have granted their petition for certiorari and relaxed the NLRC Rules of Procedure because on page 53 of their memorandum on appeal is the caption "Verification and Certification." However, the counsel for the petitioners inadvertently deleted the paragraphs intended for the certification of non-forum shopping. They assert that they were in a hurry in preparing the memorandum due to the very limited time of 10 days to file the same. They proffer these as justifiable causes for their non-compliance with the NLRC Rules of Procedure and submit that their belated filing of the certificate in their motion for reconsideration was substantial compliance. They further aver that the outright dismissal of their appeal on a mere technicality would seriously impair the orderly administration of justice.

The petitioners' arguments are devoid of merit. The subsequent compliance with the requirement does not excuse a party's failure to comply therewith in the first instance. While the Court, in certain cases, has excused non-compliance with the requirement to submit a certificate of non-forum shopping, such liberal posture has always been grounded on special circumstances or compelling reasons which made the strict application of the rule clearly unjustified or inequitable.

Here, the reasons cited by the petitioners for their failure to attach the certificate in their appeal memorandum can hardly be considered as special circumstances or compelling reasons to warrant a liberal application of the rules of procedure. Moreover, based on the facts of the case, a strict application of a technical rule will not prejudice the administration of justice in view of the petitioners' unmeritorious claims.

In fine, in the absence of justifiable and compelling reasons, a liberal application of procedural rules is not warranted in this case. The Court thus agrees with the CA that no grave abuse of discretion is attributable to the NLRC when it found no justification to excuse the absence of a certificate of non-forum shopping in the petitioners' memorandum on appeal.

Sps Lantin vs. Hon Lantion

G.R. No. 160053, August 28, 2006

Sps. Renato & Angelina Lantin vs. Hon. Jane Aurora Lantion

Petitioners Renato and Angelina Lantin took several peso and dollar loans from respondent Planters Development Bank and executed several real estate mortgages and promissory notes to cover the loans. They defaulted on the payments so respondent bank foreclosed the mortgaged lots. The foreclosed properties, in partial satisfaction of petitioners debt, were sold at a public auction where the respondent bank was the winning bidder. On November 8, 2003, petitioners filed against Planters Development Bank and its officers Elizabeth Umali, Alice Perce and Jelen Mosca (private respondents), a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity and/or Annulment of Sale and/or Mortgage, Reconveyance, Discharge of Mortgage, Accounting, Permanent Injunction, and Damages with the RTC of Lipa City, Batangas. 

Private respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue since the loan agreements restricted the venue of any suit in Metro Manila.

According to the petitioners, the venue stipulation in the loan documents is not an exclusive venue stipulation under Section 4(b) of Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

The pertinent provisions of the several real estate mortgages and promissory notes executed by the petitioner respectively read as follows:

18. In the event of suit arising out of or in connection with this mortgage and/or the promissory note/s secured by this mortgage, the parties hereto agree to bring their causes of auction (sic) exclusively in the proper court of Makati, Metro Manila or at such other venue chosen by the Mortgagee,the Mortgagor waiving for this purpose any other venue.

I/We further submit that the venue of any legal action arising out of this note shall exclusively be at the proper court of Metropolitan Manila, Philippines or any other venue chosen by the BANK, waiving for this purpose any other venue provided by the Rules of Court

Issue: Whether or not there is improper venue?

Held:

Under Section 4 (b) of Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the general rules on venue of actions shall not apply where the parties, before the filing of the action, have validly agreed in writing on an exclusive venue. The mere stipulation on the venue of an action, however, is not enough to preclude parties from bringing a case in other venues. The parties must be able to show that such stipulation is exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place.

The words exclusively and waiving for this purpose any other venue are restrictive and used advisedly to meet the requirements