555 Phil. 42
NACHURA, J.:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in G.R. No. 77629:All other aspects of the decision appealed from, which are not so modified or affected thereby, are hereby AFFIRMED. The temporary restraining order issued in G.R. No. 77629 is hereby made permanent.
- Ordering the med-arbiter in Case No. R04-OD-M-4-15-86 to open and count the 64 challenged votes, and that the union with the highest number of votes be thereafter declared as the duly elected certified bargaining representative of the regular employees of KIMBERLY;
- Ordering KIMBERLY to pay the workers who have been regularized their differential pay with respect to minimum wage, cost of living allowance, 13th month pay, and benefits provided for under the applicable collective bargaining agreement from the time they became regular employees.
The petition filed in G.R. No. 78791 is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED. [10]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:On appeal by both parties, the NLRC rendered its decision[15] on April 28, 1999 finding no basis in KILUSAN-OLALIA's contention that the action of the company in recognizing and concluding a CBA with UKCEO-PTGWO amounted to refusal to bargain. Thus, Kimberly was held not guilty of an unfair labor practice, precluding the application of the in pari delicto doctrine. The NLRC disposed of the case as follows:SO ORDERED.[14]
- Declaring the parties to be in pari delicto;
- Ordering the parties to cease and desist from committing the same or similar acts complained of;
- Ordering Kimberly Clark (Phil.), (sic) Inc. to reinstate all respondents and counter-complainants listed in Annex "A" hereof, except those who already died, to their former or equivalent positions, without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, either physically or in the payroll, at the option of the company;
- Ordering Kimberly Clark (Phil.), (sic) Inc. to pay the respondents and counter-complainants whose names appear in Annex "A" hereof their respective backwages or separation pay in the total sum of P2,144,592.08;
- Ordering Kimberly Clark (Phil.), (sic) Inc. to pay attorney's fees in the amount of P214,459.28;
- All other claims are denied for lack of merit.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED in so far as declaring the strike illegal is concerned and the finding that the company is not guilty of unfair labor practice. The same is however modified with our finding: (1) that the in pari delicto doctrine is not applicable to the instant case; (2) that the officers of KILUSAN-OLALIA are hereby declared to have lost their employment status for staging an illegal strike; (3) that the union members listed in Annex "A" are hereby ordered to be paid separation pay at the rate of one half (1/2) month pay for every year of service a fraction of six (6) months is considered one (1) year and in no case it should be less than one (1) month pay computed on the basis of their salary received at the time of dismissal up to and until the promulgation of this decision.Both parties filed their respective motions for reconsideration, which were denied by the NLRC.[17] The NLRC, nonetheless, corrected its computation of the separation pay and made the following disposition:
All other claims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[16]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, our resolution dated April 28, 1999 is hereby, RECONSIDERED only insofar as the award of separation pay to the respondents is concerned whereby an additional one half (1/2) month pay for every year of service and a fraction of six months is considered7 one year is hereby ordered to be paid to them as separation pay.Aggrieved, KILUSAN-OLALIA instituted a Petition for Certiorari[19] with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 60035.
The motions for reconsideration are hereby, DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[18]
This Court resolved to DISMISS the above-entitled petition on the following grounds:In the Resolution dated July 19, 2001, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration. Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari (G.R. Nos. 149158-59)[23] raising the following:
- The verification was signed only by petitioners' president, sans any board resolution or power of attorney authorizing anybody to sign the same and the certificate on non-forum shopping; and
- The attached complaint and amended complaint thereof are not legible copies.
IT IS SO ORDERED.[22]
Petitioners further prayed for the remand of this case to the CA and its consolidation with CA-G.R. SP No. 60001.[29]I
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE RESPONDENT COURT HAS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE, PATENT AND PALPABLE ERROR IN DISMISSING THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE BASED ON SHEER TECHNICALITY AND NOT IN THE MERIT OF THE PETITION ITSELF.[24]II
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE RESPONDENT COURT HAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED THE RULES BY SHEER RESORT TO TECHNICALITY.[25]Ill
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE RESPONDENT COURT HAS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE, PATENT AND PALPABLE ERROR IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS WITH IT WHEN, OBVIOUSLY, THE UNION PRESIDENT IS DULY AUTHORIZED TO FILE AND SIGN THE SAID PETITION AS WELL AS TO EXECUTE A CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING.[26]IV
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE RESPONDENT COURT HAS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE, PATENT AND PALPABLE ERROR IN DISMISSING THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE WHEN, OBVIOUSLY, SUCH ACTION WILL UNFAIRLY AND UNDULY PREJUDICED (SIC) THE MEMBERS OF THE PETITIONER UNION AND FAVOR THE RESPONDENT COMPANY WHICH ALSO FILED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WITH THE RESPONDENT COURT ASSAILING THE QUESTIONED JUDGMENT OF THE NLRC.[27]V
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE RESPONDENT COURT HAD COMMITTED (SIC) REVERSIBLE, PATENT AND PALPABLE ERROR IN DISMISSING THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE WHEN, OBVIOUSLY:
- THE COPIES OF THE COMPLAINT AND AMENDED COMPLAINT ARE NOT EXACTLY ILLEGIBLE AS IT COULD BE READ BY NAKED EYES;
- IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE PETITIONERS BECAUSE THE SAID PLEADINGS WERE PREPARED AND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT COMPANY IN THE COURT BELOW;
- THE SAID PLEADINGS ARE ANCIENT DOCUMENTS HAVING BEEN PREPARED AND FILED SOMETIME ON (sic) JUNE, 1987; AND
- THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (ANNEX "F") IS IDENTICAL TO THE CLEAR COPY OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ANNEX "E") EXCEPT THAT THE ANNEXES THERETO WERE RE-MARKED IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND THE INCLUSIONS OF PARAGRAPHS 14, 15, 16, 17 AND 18 WHICH COULD BE READ BY NAKED EYES.[28]
ACCORDINGLY, let a partial writ of execution issue to enforce payment of the sum of (sic) P576,510.57 to the 22 individual workers listed in ANNEX A of Kimberly's Comment/Reply dated 31 October 1991 representing their differential pay with respect to the minimum wage, cost of living allowance, 13th month pay and benefits provided under the applicable collective bargaining agreement from the time they became regular employees as above-indicated.Pursuant thereto, on August 1, 2000, the Bureau of Working Conditions (BWC) submitted its report finding 47 out of the 76 complainants as entitled to be regularized.[32]
Further, the Bureau of Working Conditions is hereby directed to submit, within twenty (20) days from receipt of this Order, a list of workers who have been regularized and the corresponding benefits owing to them from the time they became regular employees.
SO ORDERED.[31]
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration filed by the COMPANY is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. No further motion of the same nature shall be entertained. Further, the Report of computation submitted by the Bureau of Working Conditions is hereby APPROVED and made an integral part of this Order.[34]Kimberly, steadfast in its stand, filed a petition for certiorari[36] before the appellate court, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 62257 alleging that the employees who were dismissed due to the illegal strike staged on May 17, 1987 (the subject of G.R. Nos. 149158-59) should not be awarded regularization differentials.[37]
Let a writ of execution be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED.[35]
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for failure to show grave abuse of discretion. The questioned orders dated June 29, 2000 and December 6, 2000 of the Secretary of Labor are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.With the denial of its motion for reconsideration,[40] Kimberly elevated the case before this Court, on the following grounds:
SO ORDERED.[39]
On the recommendation[41] of the Division Clerk of Court and in the interest of an orderly administration of justice, the Court, on May 24, 2004, ordered the consolidation of this case, G.R. No. 156668, with G.R. Nos. 149158-59.[42]
- The Court of Appeals committed serious error in affirming the ruling of the Secretary of Labor that even casual employees who had not rendered one year of service were considered regular employees, thereby nullifying and disregarding the Honorable Court's Decision dated May 9, 1990 that only casual employees who had rendered at least one (1) year of service were considered regular employees.
- The Court of Appeals also gravely erred in upholding the ruling of Labor Secretary that persons not party to the petition in G.R. No. 77629 were entitled to regularization differentials, thereby amending the Honorable Court's decision.
The rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case and the signing by only one of them is insufficient. However, the Court has also stressed that the rules on forum shopping, which were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective. The rule of substantial compliance may be availed of with respect to the contents of the certification. This is because the requirement of strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certification of non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded. It does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances.On the legibility of the attached pleadings, particularly the complaint and the amended complaint, we find that the same may be excused given the antiquity of the said documents. Nevertheless, a perusal of the records reveals that the said pleadings are legible enough. Again, the rules of procedure shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.[48]
We find that the execution by Thomas George Cavile, Sr. in behalf of all the other petitioners of the certificate of non-forum shopping constitutes substantial compliance with the Rules. All the petitioners, being relatives and co-owners of the properties in dispute, share a common interest thereon. They also share a common defense in the complaint for partition filed by the respondents. Thus, when they filed the instant petition, they filed it as a collective, raising only one argument to defend their rights over the properties in question. There is sufficient basis, therefore, for Thomas George Cavili, Sr. to speak for and in behalf of his co-petitioners that they have not filed any action or claim involving the same issues in another court or tribunal, nor is there other pending action or claim in another court or tribunal involving the same issues. Moreover, it has been held that the merits of the substantive aspects of the case may be deemed as "special circumstance" for the Court to take cognizance of a petition for review although the certification against forum shopping was executed and signed by only one of the petitioners.[47]
KILUSAN-OLALIA: | 246 votes |
UKCEO-PTGWO: | 266 votes |
NO UNION: | 1 vote |
SPOILED BALLOTS: | 4 votes |
CHALLENGED BALLOTS: | 64 votes |
TOTAL: | 581 votes (Rollo [G.R. No. 156668], p. 15.) |