448 Phil. 657
VITUG, J.:
“WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that herein complainants have indeed been constructively dismissed from their employment. Accordingly, respondent Kris Security Systems, Inc. is hereby directed to reinstate said complainants to their former position(s) without loss of seniority rights and to pay them their full backwages as follows:Private respondent appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC which, on 08 August 2001, set aside the questioned decision of the Labor Arbiter, it held:
Full Backwages “1) Agapito C. Fiel P139,799.66“2) Avelino Q. Reyes P139,799.66“3) Roy C.Bonbon P137,583.16“4) Diomedes Uray P139,128.00
“The other monetary claims are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.”[1]
“WHEREFORE, the appealed decision dated 30 June 2000 is SET ASIDE. The complaints for illegal dismissal are dismissed for being without merit.”[2]Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC in its resolution of 28 November 2001.
“Whether or not the Court of Appeals acted correctly and in the interest of substantial justice when it dismissed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the mere technicality that said petition was signed, certified and verified by only three (3) out of four (4) named petitioners (all of whom claim to have been illegally dismissed by their employer) considering the following circumstances:In its brief comment, dated 09 January 2003, respondent company prays for the denial of the petition and an affirmance of the action taken by the Court of Appeals.
“(a) The ruling in the case of Loquias, et al. vs. Office of the Ombudsman (338 SCRA 62) where only 1 out of 5 petitioners signed the certification of their petition is not properly applicable to the present case where 3 out of 4 petitioners signed the verification of their petition.
“(b) The later ruling in DAR vs. Alonzo-Legasto (339 SCRA 306), (where the petition was signed by only one of each of the four (4) couples) that the requirement of a certification of non-forum shopping ‘should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert’ the goal of achieving substantial justice supplanted or modified the earlier strict ruling in Loquias vs. Office of the Ombudsman (338 SCRA 62).
“(c) In St. Michael Academy vs. NLRC (292 SCRA 478) it was ruled that ‘technical rules of pleading are not enforced strictly in labor cases especially where they will defeat the substantive rights of employees’ and in De Ysasi III vs. NLRC (231 SCRA 173), it was declared that courts must ‘heed the underlying policy in the labor code relaxing the application of technical rules of procedure in labor cases.’
“(d) The three (3) petitioners who signed the petition filed with the Court of Appeals are differently situated from the fourth (4th) named petitioner who failed and omitted to sign the petition; consequently, such failure and omission by the fourth (4th) petitioner should not prejudice the three (3) other petitioners who are without fault.
“(e) The failure or omission to delete from the petition filed with the Court of Appeals the name of Diomedes Uray (the 4th named petitioner who failed or omitted to sign the petition) was an excusable oversight or lapse by petitioners’ attorneys pro bono.
“(f) Giving due course to the petition only insofar as the three (3) petitioners who signed the petition are concerned but dismissing the petition only insofar as the fourth (4th) petitioner who failed or omitted to sign the petition is concerned would be a fair, reasonable and equitable disposition of the petition filed with the Court of Appeals.
“(g) An outright dismissal of the petition on a procedural or technical omission (not attributable to the three (3) petitioners who signed the petition filed with the Court of Appeals) would deprive petitioners of their right to be heard on the merits of their petition which calls for the rectification of acts of grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.”[3]