498 Phil. 808
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Ramos also prepared an inventory of the items found and seized in Broas’ locker, to wit:
- (one) 1 plastic sachet containing undetermined amount of white substance suspected as shabu
- (four) 4 aluminum foils containing U.A.S. suspected to be shabu
- (one) 1 aluminum foil strip (containing) with residue of substance suspected to be shabu
- (one) 1 improvised tooter with residue susp. to be shabu
- (one) 1 plastic sachet containing residue of susp. shabu
- (one) 1 strip (aluminum) containing granules + white substances susp. to be shabu
- (one) 1 PAL giveaway kit containing one plastic tube
- (one) 1 improvised burner with extra needle
- (four) 4 pcs. crumpled aluminum foils with residue susp. to be shabu
- (five) 5 pcs. aluminum strips
- (six) 6 pcs. aluminum foil
- (one) 1 plastic sachet containing undetermined quantity of white substance susp. to be shabu placed inside improvised metal container
- (two) 2 plastic sachets cont. residue of white substances susp. to be shabu
- (one) 1 lighter (disposable)
- (seventeen) 17 aluminum strips with residue of substances susp. to be shabu
- (two) 2 strips of aluminum foils.[6]
ITEM (QUANTITY) | DESCRIPTION |
1. (one) 1 | Plastic sachet containing undetermined amount of white substance suspected as shabu contained in a blue cloth with a letter. |
2. (one) 1 | Plastic sachet containing undetermined amount of white substance suspected as shabu.[7] |
A formal investigation ensued during which Arcenas testified. On October 9, 1995, the Grievance Committee rendered a Decision[19] finding petitioners Garcia and Dumago guilty as charged; both of them were meted the penalty of dismissal.
- Violation of Law/Government Regulations-Chapter II, Section 6, Article 46
“Any employee who by substantial evidence presented at an administrative hearing is found to have violated or attempted to violate existing laws, decrees, regulations, or orders issued by the Philippine or other governments, and their agencies and instrumentalities, which violation involves moral turpitude is work-related, or which involves the safety, welfare, reputation, or standing of the company in the community, shall be penalized as prescribed in the schedule of penalties under Article 14 of this Code, depending upon the gravity and/or frequency of the offense. Where such violation constitutes serious misconduct or breach of trust, the penalty of dismissal shall be imposed.”- Prohibited Drugs-Chapter II, Section 6, Article 48
“Any employee who, while on Company premises or on duty, is found in the possession of, or uses, or is under the influence of prohibited or controlled drugs, or hallucinogenic substances or narcotics shall suffer the penalty of dismissal.”[18]
(a) Complainants were caught by PAL personnel in flagrante delicto in the act of sniffing shabu. This is attested to by the Joint Affidavit of Messrs. Carmelo Villacete, Antonio Ramos and Ramoncito Villar, the security personnel who caught them in the act.On February 11, 1999, Labor Arbiter Ramon Valentin C. Reyes rendered a Decision, finding that the private respondent was guilty of illegal dismissal, thus:
(b) An eyewitness, in the person of Rodrigo Arcenas, [Jr.] confirmed that the complainants (together with three other employees) indeed sniffed shabu inside the Toolroom of the Plant Equipment [and] Maintenance Division.
(c) The National Bureau of Investigation confirmed that the white crystalline substance found in the possession of the apprehended employees was “Methamphetamine Hydrochloride” or shabu, in ordinary parlance.
(d) Drug test conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation revealed that the complainants were positive for “AMPHETAMINE.”[22]
WHEREFORE, conformably with the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the respondents guilty of illegal suspension and illegal dismissal and ordering them to reinstate complainants to their former position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges. Respondents are hereby further ordered to pay jointly and severally unto the complainants the following:The Labor Arbiter ruled that the NBI Toxicology Report on the urine samples of the complainants were not admissible in evidence. And even if they were, being positive for amphetamine does not constitute as a violation of the law.[24] The private respondent appealed the decision.
Alberto J. Dumago -P409,500.00 backwages as of 1/10/99 P34,125.00 for 13th month pay Juanito A. Garcia - P1,290,744.00 backwages as of 1/10/99 P107,562.00 for 13th month pay
The amounts of P100,000.00 and P50,000.00 to each complainant as and by way of moral and exemplary damages; and
The sum equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total award as and for attorney’s fees.
Respondents are directed to immediately comply with the reinstatement aspect of this Decision. However, in the event that reinstatement is no longer feasible, respondents are hereby ordered, in lieu thereof, to pay unto the complainants their separation pay computed at one month for every year of service.
SO ORDERED.[23]
6.1 The public respondent NLRC erred and committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in:On August 10, 2000, the CA dismissed the petition for failure to append copies of the material documents referred to therein, such as (a) the petitioners’ complaint for illegal dismissal and damages; (b) the private respondent’s position paper filed with the Labor Arbiter; and (c) the Labor Arbiter’s Order dated June 16, 1998 submitting the case for resolution.[29] The petitioners received a copy of the resolution on August 21, 2000 and filed on August 29, 2000 a motion for its reconsideration, appending the pleadings and the order adverted to in the CA resolution.[30](a) Reversing the decision of the labor arbiter;6.2 The contradictory findings and conclusions of the labor arbiter and the NLRC provide strong and compelling reasons to warrant judicial review of the instant case to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
(b) Concluding that the petitioners were caught sniffing shabu;
(c) Disregarding the petitioners’ Constitutional rights to counsel and due process of law.
6.3 There is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[28]
The petitioners argue that their failure to append the three documents to their petition was not fatal because they had substantially complied with all the formal requirements under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 3 of Rule 46. They aver that they submitted certified true copies of the decision and the resolution subject of the petition, copies of relevant pleadings, as well as the documents necessary for a complete understanding of the issues raised, and a certificate of non-forum shopping.[33] They posit that should the CA disagree on what they had considered relevant to their petition, the petition should not have been dismissed outright; instead, the CA should have required them to submit the requisite documents.[34]
- Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals decided CA-G.R. SP No. 59826 in a way not in accord with the law or the decisions of this Honorable Supreme Court, and the Constitutional mandate of protection to labor, when it dismissed the Petition for Certiorari on purely technical grounds (i.e., failure to append 3 documents), and denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, despite the fact that the petitioners already submitted the documents in their motion for reconsideration.
- Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings in deciding CA-G.R. SP No. 59826, by not resolving the case on the merits despite the conflicting findings and conclusions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.[32]
SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. – 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 provision mandates that the following documents should be appended to the petition: a certified copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject of the petition; copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto; and a sworn statement of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46, which reads:
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.
SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition, effect of non-compliance with requirements. –It is evident, therefore, that aside from the assailed decision, order or resolution, not every pleading or document mentioned in the petition is required to be submitted – only those that are pertinent and relevant to the judgment, order or resolution subject of the petition. The initial determination of what pleadings, documents or orders are relevant and pertinent to the petition rests on the petitioner. If, upon its initial review of the petition, the CA is of the view that additional pleadings, documents or order should have been submitted and appended to the petition, the following are its options: (a) dismiss the petition under the last paragraph of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court; (b) order the petitioner to submit the required additional pleadings, documents, or order within a specific period of time; or (c) order the petitioner to file an amended petition appending thereto the required pleadings, documents or order within a fixed period.…
The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a sworn certification that he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.…
Under the circumstances, we hold that there was substantial compliance with Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. In dismissing the Petition before it, the appellate court clearly put a premium on technicalities at the expense of a just resolution of the case.In this case, the petitioners filed a motion for the reconsideration of the August 10, 2000 CA Resolution, and appended thereto the required pleadings and order; they likewise explained that they failed to append the same to their original petition because they believed that the said pleadings and order did not affect the substance of the petition filed before the CA. Indeed, there is merit in their contention because the substance of their complaint with the Labor Arbiter, as well as that of the private respondent’s position paper, were already embodied in the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, certified copies of which were appended to the original petition. The petitioners thus believed in good faith that the pleadings and order required by the CA were no longer necessary.
We must stress that “cases should be determined on the merits after full opportunity to all parties for ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections. In that way, the ends of justice would be served better.” Moreover, the Court has held:“Dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense, for they are adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice, and thereby defeat their very aims.”Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending in court. A strict and rigid application of rules that would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must be avoided.[38]
The policy of our judicial system is to encourage full adjudication of the merits of an appeal. In the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, this Court may reverse the dismissal of appeals that are grounded merely on technicalities. Moreover, procedural niceties should be avoided in labor cases in which the provisions of the Rules of Court are applied only in suppletory manner. Indeed, rules of procedure may be relaxed to relieve a part of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of noncompliance with the process required.[42]The Court thus holds that the petitioners deserve to be heard on their petition for certiorari, considering the conflicting findings and conclusions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC based on their calibration of the evidence on record. Moreover, the petitioners’ plea that urine samples were extracted from them without the assistance of counsel and that the Toxicology Reports of the NBI Forensic and Chemistry Division are inadmissible in evidence must also be considered. The joint affidavits of Villacete, Ramos, Villar and Arcenas that the petitioners were caught sniffing methamphetamine hydrochloride are contradicted by the NBI’s Toxicology Reports that the urine samples provided by the petitioners were found positive for amphetamine. There is thus a need for the CA to resolve the issues of whether amphetamine is indeed a metabolite of methamphetamine and whether the possession and use of such substance is a violation of the law.
Under the Rules of Court which were then in effect and applicable to the case at bar, when MARS failed to file an answer to petitioner’s cross-claim, it should have been declared in default with respect to such claim. In labor cases, however, technical rules of procedure are not applicable, but may apply only by analogy or in a suppletory character, for instance, when there is a need to attain substantial justice and an expeditious, practical and convenient solution to a labor problem. Hence, when the POEA opted to overlook petitioner’s cross-claim against MARS, petitioner was denied substantial justice.[44]Indeed, technicalities should not be permitted to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties. The Court reiterates that where the ends of substantial justice would be better served, the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed.[45]