584 Phil. 77
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Complainant was hired as a college instructor by respondent [herein petitioner] school way back in June 1986. After two years of full time teaching complainant went on leave of absence to go abroad in November 1988. When he came back in June 1992, he applied again in respondent school as a college instructor and was accepted. Since then he had continuously taught in the school. However, he alleged that without any cause or reason given to him for the first semester of school year 1997- 1998 he was not given his regular load. When complainant inquired from the Dean of the College why he was not given his regular teaching load, the Dean advised complainants to see the Executive Vice-President of the school, Ms. Melissa Jimenez Ampuan, who according to complainant, just casually told him to "take a rest" or in Bicol dialect "Magpahingalo ka muna."The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of the complainant. The LA held that the complainant was a regular employee and not a probationary employee as alleged by the petitioner. Thus, complainant could only be dismissed for cause and with due process. The LA ruled, to wit:
Hence, the instant complaint alleging that he was illegally dismissed.
x x x x[4]
We are not persuaded that complainant was a mere probationary employee as shown by a Service Contract executed sometime on November 11, 1996, hence deemed a part-time instructor. The aforesaid contract notwithstanding, complainant admittedly is a classroom instructor or teacher in respondents' Marine Engineering Department. He was engaged to perform activities, which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of respondent as an education institution. His regular employment for a considerable length of time with respondent from 1986 and thereafter to be converted into a probationary employment in the second semester of School Year 1996-1997, is definitely a diminution of a worker's rank and benefits which is frowned upon by our law and the Constitution.The NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA. The NLRC in its decision ruled that since the complainant was rehired in 1992, it made him a regular teacher.[6] Moreover, the evidence presented by the complainant showing his teaching load since 1992 to 1997 very clearly showed that he was a full-time instructor.[7]
Besides, when complainant was rehired in 1992 he was not made to sign a Service Contract that he should undergo a probationary employment, instead he was considered and certified as a full-time instructor, apparently because of his teaching competence which had already been tried and tested, thus commended as having performed "very satisfactorily". He reentered the service in 1992 as a regular or permanent teacher. As such, he could not now be discharged solely on account of the expiration of her [sic] alleged Service Contract. He could only be dismissed for cause and with due process, as provided by Article 279 of the Labor Code.
On the issue of dismissal, the evidence adduced by the respondents shows that indeed they deliberately refused to provide complainant with any teaching load comes the 1st Semester of School Year 1997-1998. Their justification on this regard were herein quoted as follows:
With a heavy heart, Ms. Ampuan did not renew anymore the service contract of the complainant for the following semester (first semester, SY 1997-1998). Her intention was to allow the complainant to go on vacation for one semester, or sort of allowing him to `unwind' as she was suspecting that the complainant was `burning out' on the stress of the job as a teacher. That was the reason why Ms. Ampuan told the complainant to rest for a while (`magpahingalo ka muna').
Clearly the non-renewal of the service contract of the complainant as claimed by the respondent was without any prior notice, neither was the complainant given the opportunity to explain, if ever, there is something to be `unwind' where respondents considered complainant to have been `burned out'. x x x[5] (Emphasis supplied)
The instant Petition for Certiorari being defective in that the complaint; the parties' respective position papers filed with the Labor Arbiter to which are usually attached their evidence; and the Reply, if any, to each other's position papers are not attached thereto, the same is DISMISSED outright.Furthermore, the CA disposed of respondent's Motion for Reconsideration in the following fashion:
SO ORDERED.[11]
WHEREFORE, for utter failure of the petitioner to comply with Section 3, Rule 46 of the aforesaid Rules (Rules of Court), the instant motion is DENIED for lack of merit.Hence, herein petition.
SO ORDERED.[12]
The Court's Ruling
- WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY DISMISSED THE PETITION OUTRIGHT FOR FAILURE TO APPEND TO ITS PETITION "THE COMPLAINT, THE PARTIES RESPECTIVE POSITION PAPERS FILED WITH THE LABOR ARBITER OF WHICH ARE USUALLY ATTACHED THEIR EVIDENCE, AND THE REPLY, IF ANY, TO EACH, OTHERS POSITION PAPERS."
- WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, CORRECTLY DISMISSED THE PETITION OUTRIGHT AND DENIED THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY APPLYING STRICTLY TECHNICAL RULES OF PROCEDURE.[13]
SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of noncompliance with requirements. -- x x xAtillo v. Bombay[14] is instructive. The Court in interpreting a similar provision in the Rules of Court[15] gave the following observations:
It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with proof of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy intended for the court indicated 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. x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
x x x x
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
The mandatory tenor of Section 2(d), Rule 42 with respect to the requirement of attaching clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts is discernible and well settled. In this case, the mandatory or directory nature of the requirement with respect to the attachment of pleadings and other material portions of the record is put in question.In the case at bar, we find that the documents attached to the petition sufficiently supported the allegations therein. The attached LA decision made reference to the position papers of both parties in stating the factual antecedents of the case. Likewise, it embodied the cause of action of the complainant as well as the arguments of both parties. Annexed to the Memorandum of Appeal of the petitioner are the (1) Service Contract signed by the petitioner and the respondent, and (2) a copy of the workload of the complainant. The LA decision and the Memorandum of Appeal including its annexes obviated the need for the petitioner to attach the complaint and the position papers of the parties. Furthermore, the NLRC decision and the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration discussed the grounds for appeal and the arguments raised therein.
The phrase "of the pleadings and other material portions of the record" in Section 2(d), Rule 42 is followed by the phrase "as would support the allegations of the petition" clearly contemplates the exercise of discretion on the part of the petitioner in the selection of documents that are deemed to be relevant to the petition. x x x. The crucial issue to consider then is whether or not the documents accompanying the petition before the CA sufficiently supported the allegations therein.[16] (Emphasis supplied)