SECOND DIVISION
MARIVELES
SHIPYARD
CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
144134
November 11, 2003
-versus-
HON.
COURT OF
APPEALS,
LUIS REGONDOLA,[*]
MANUELIT GATALAN,[*]ORESCA
AGAPITO, NOEL ALBADBAD,[*]ROGELIO
PINTUAN, DANILO CRISOSTOMO, ROMULO MACALINAO,NESTOR FERER,[*]RICKY
CUESTA, ROLLY ANDRADA,[*]LARRY
ROGOLA,FRANCISCO LENOGON,
AUGUSTO QUINTO,[*]ARFE
BERAMO,BONIFACIO TRINIDAD,
ALFREDO ASCARRAGA,[*]ERNESTO
MAGNO,HONORARIO HORTECIO,[*]NELBERT
PINEDA, GLEN ESTIPULAR,FRANCISCO COMPUESTO,
ISABELITO CORTEZ,[*]MATURAN
ROSAURO,SAMSON CANAS, FEBIEN
ISIP, JESUS RIPARIP, ALFREDO SIENES,ADOLAR ALBERT,
HONESTO
CABANILLAS, AMPING CASTILLO AND ELWIN REVILLA,
Respondents.
|
D E C I S I O N
QUISUMBING,
J.:
For review on certiorari
is the Resolution,[1]
dated December 29, 1999, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
55416,
which dismissed outright the Petition for Certiorari of Mariveles
Shipyard
Corp., due to a defective Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping and
non-submission
of the required documents to accompany said petition. Mariveles
Shipyard
Corp., had filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court
of
Appeals to nullify the resolution[2]
of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), dated April 22,
1999,
in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-09-005440-96-A, which affirmed the Labor
Arbiter's
decision,[3]
dated May 22, 1998, holding petitioner jointly and severally liable
with
Longest Force Investigation and Security Agency, Inc., for the
underpayment
of wages and overtime pay due to the private respondents. Likewise
challenged
in the instant petition is the Resolution[4]
of the Court of Appeals, dated July 12, 2000, denying petitioner's
Motion
for Reconsideration.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The facts, as
culled
from records, are as follows:
Sometime on
October 1993, petitioner Mariveles Shipyard Corporation engaged the
services
of Longest Force Investigation and Security Agency, Inc. (hereinafter,
"Longest Force") to render security services at its premises. Pursuant
to their agreement, Longest Force deployed its security guards, the
private
respondents herein, at the petitioner's shipyard in Mariveles, Bataan.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
According to
petitioner,
it religiously complied with the terms of the security contract with
Longest
Force, promptly paying its bills and the contract rates of the latter.
However, it found the services being rendered by the assigned guards
unsatisfactory
and inadequate, causing it to terminate its contract with Longest Force
on April 1995.[5]
Longest Force, in turn, terminated the employment of the security
guards
it had deployed at petitioner's shipyard.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On September 2,
1996,
private respondents filed a case for illegal dismissal, underpayment of
wages pursuant to the PNPSOSIA-PADPAO rates, non-payment of overtime
pay,
premium pay for holiday and rest day, service incentive leave pay, 13th
month pay and attorney's fees, against both Longest Force and
petitioner,
before the Labor Arbiter. Docketed as NLRC NCR Case No.
00-09-005440-96-A,
the case sought the guards' reinstatement with full backwages and
without
loss of seniority rights.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For its part,
Longest
Force filed a cross-claim[6]
against the petitioner. Longest Force admitted that it employed private
respondents and assigned them as security guards at the premises of
petitioner
from October 16, 1993 to April 30, 1995, rendering a 12 hours duty per
shift for the said period. It likewise admitted its liability as to the
non-payment of the alleged wage differential in the total amount of
P2,618,025
but passed on the liability to petitioner alleging that the service fee
paid by the latter to it was way below the PNPSOSIA and PADPAO rate,
thus,
"contrary to the mandatory and prohibitive laws because the right to
proper
compensation and benefits provided under the existing labor laws cannot
be waived nor compromised."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioner
denied
any liability on account of the alleged illegal dismissal, stressing
that
no employer-employee relationship existed between it and the security
guards.
It further pointed out that it would be the height of injustice to make
it liable again for monetary claims which it had already paid. Anent
the
cross-claim filed by Longest Force against it, petitioner prayed that
it
be dismissed for lack of merit. Petitioner averred that Longest Force
had
benefited from the contract, it was now estopped from questioning said
agreement on the ground that it had made a bad deal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 22, 1998, the
Labor
Arbiter decided NLRC NCR Case No. 00-09-005440-96-A, to wit:
WHEREFORE,
conformably with the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered ordering
the
respondents as follows:
1.
DECLARING
respondents Longest Force Investigation & Security Agency, Inc. and
Mariveles Shipyard Corporation jointly and severally liable to pay the
money claims of complainants representing underpayment of wages and
overtime
pay in the total amount of P2,700,623.40 based on the PADPAO rates of
pay
covering the period from October 16, 1993 up to April 29, 1995 broken
down
as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
UNDERPAYMENT
OF WAGES:
PERIOD
COVERED
MONTHLY PADPAO
RATES ACTUAL
SALARY
RECEIVED UNDER
PAYMENT
WAGE DIFFERENTIALS
(8 hrs. duty)
FOR THE PERIOD
Oct.
16-Dec.
P5,485.00
P5,000
P485.00
P970.00
15/93 (2 mos.)
Dec.
16/93-Mar.
6,630.00
5,000
1,630.00
5,705.00
31/94 (3.5 mos.)
Apr.
1-Dec.
7,090.00
5,810
1,280.00
11,520.00
31/94 (9 mos.)
Jan.
1-Apr.
7,220.00
5,810
1,410.00
5,597.70
29/95 (3.97 mos.)
——————
TOTAL
UNDERPAYMENTS:
P23,792.70
——————
OVERTIME:
Oct. 16-Dec.
15/93
P5,485 x 2
= P5,485.00
(2
mos.)
2
Dec. 16/93-Mar.
31/94
6,630 x 3.5
= 11,602.50
(3.5
mos.)
2
Apr. 1-Dec.
31/94
7,090 x 9
= 31,905.00
(9
mos.)
2
Jan. 1-Apr.
29/95
7,220 x 3.97
= 14,331.70
(3.97
mos.)
2
TOTAL
OVERTIME:
P63,324.20
Sub-Total of
Underpayments
and Overtime:
P87,116.90 =========
1. Luis
Regondula
(the
same)
P 87,116.90
2. Manolito
Catalan
(the
same)
87,116.90
3. Oresca
Agapito
(the
same)
87,116.90
4. Noel
Alibadbad
(the
same)
87,116.90
5. Rogelio
Pintuan
(the
same)
87,116.90
6. Danilo
Crisostomo
(the
same)
87,116.90
7. Romulo
Macalinao
(the
same)
87,116.90
8. Nestor
Ferrer
(the
same)
87,116.90
9. Ricky
Cuesta
(the
same)
87,116.90
10. Andrada
Ricky
(the
same)
87,116.90
11. Larry
Rogola
(the
same)
87,116.90
12. Francisco
Lenogon
(the
same)
87,116.90
13. Augosto
Quinto
(the
same)
87,116.90
14. Arfe
Beramo
(the
same)
87,116.90
15. Bonifacio
Trinidad
(the
same)
87,116.90
16. Alfredo
Azcarraga
(the
same)
87,116.90
17. Ernesto
Magno
(the
same)
87,116.90
18. Honario
Hortecio
(the
same)
87,116.90
19. Nelbert
Pineda
(the
same)
87,116.90
20. Glen
Estipular
(the
same)
87,116.90
21. Francisco
Compuesto
(the
same)
87,116.90
22. Isabelito
Cortes
(the
same)
87,116.90
23. Maturan
Rosauro
(the
same)
87,116.90
24. Samson
Canas
(the
same)
87,116.90
25. Febien
Isip
(the
same)
87,116.90
26. Jesus
Riparip
(the
same)
87,116.90
27. Alfredo
Sienes
(the
same)
87,116.90
28. Adolar
Albert
(the
same)
87,116.90
29. Cabanillas
Honesto
(the
same)
87,116.90
30. Castillo
Amping
(the
same)
87,116.90
31. Revilla
Elwin
(the
same)
87,116.90
——————
GRAND TOTAL:
P2,700,623.90
============
2. DECLARING
both respondents
liable to pay complainants attorney's fees equivalent to ten (10%)
percent
of the total award recovered or the sum of P270,062.34.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. ORDERING
respondent
Longest Force Investigation & Security Agency, Inc. to reinstate
all
the herein complainants to their former or equivalent positions without
loss of seniority rights and privileges with full backwages which as
computed
as of the date of this decision are as follows:
BACKWAGES:
10/16 – 12/15/93
= 2
mos. - P5,485.00 x 2
mos.
= P10,970.00
12/16/93 –
3/31/94 =
3.5 mos. - P6,630.00 x 3.5
mos.
= 23,205.00
4/1 – 12/31/94 =
9 mos.
- P7,090.00 x 9
mos.
= 63,810.00
1/1 – 4/29/95 =
3.97
mos. - P7,220.00 x 3.97
mos.
=
28,663.40
–—————––
TOTAL:
P126,684.40[7]
============
1. Luis
Regondula
(same)
P126,684.40[8]
2. Manolito
Catalan
(same)
126,684.40
3. Oresca
Agapito
(same)
126,684.40
4. Noel
Alibadbad
(same)
126,684.40
5. Rogelio
Pintuan
(same)
126,684.40
6. Danilo
Crisostomo
(same)
126,684.40
7. Romulo
Macalinao
(same)
126,684.40
8. Nestor
Ferrer
(same)
126,684.40
9. Ricky
Cuesta
(same)
126,684.40
10. Andrada
Rolly
(same)
126,684.40
11. Larry
Rogola
(same)
126,684.40
12. Francisco
Lenogon
(same)
126,684.40
13. Augosto
Quinto
(same)
126,684.40
14. Arfe
Beramo
(same)
126,684.40
15. Bonifacio
Trinidad
(same)
126,684.40
16. Alfredo
Azcarraga
(same)
126,684.40
17. Ernesto
Magno
(same)
126,684.40
18. Honario
Hortecio
(same)
126,684.40
19. Nelbert
Pineda
(same)
126,684.40
20. Glen
Estipular
(same)
126,684.40
21. Francisco
Compuesto
(same)
126,684.40
22. Isabelito
Cortes
(same)
126,684.40
23. Maturan
Rosauro
(same)
126,684.40
24. Samson
Canas
(same)
126,684.40
25. Febien
Isip
(same)
126,684.40
26. Jesus
Riparip
(same)
126,684.40
27. Alfredo
Sienes
(same)
126,684.40
28. Adolar
Albert
(same)
126,684.40
29. Cabanillas
Honesto
(same)
126,684.40
30. Castillo
Amping
(same)
126,684.40
31. Revilla
Elwin
(same)
126,684.40
——————
GRAND
TOTAL:
P3,927,216.40[9]
=============
4. ORDERING said
Longest
Force Investigation & Security Agency, Inc. to pay attorney's fees
equivalent to ten (10%) percent of the total award recovered
representing
backwages in the amount of P392,721.64.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5. DISMISSING
all other
claims for lack of legal basis.
SO ORDERED.[11]
Petitioner appealed the
foregoing to the NLRC in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-09-005440-96-A. The labor
tribunal, however, affirmed in toto the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but this was denied by the NLRC.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioner then
filed a special civil action for certiorari assailing the NLRC judgment
for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion with the Court
of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 55416. The Court of Appeals,
however,
denied due course to the petition and dismissed it outright for the
following
reasons:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. The
verification
and certification on non-forum shopping is signed not by duly
authorized
officer of petitioner corporation, but by counsel (Section 1, Rule 65, 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. The petition is
unaccompanied
by copies of relevant and pertinent documents, particularly the motion
for reconsideration filed before the NLRC (Section 1, Rule 65, 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure).[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioner then
moved
for reconsideration of the order of dismissal. The appellate court
denied
the motion, pointing out that under prevailing case law subsequent
compliance
with formal requirements for filing a petition as prescribed by the
Rules,
does not ipso facto warrant a reconsideration. In any event, it found
no
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC to grant the writ of
certiorari.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, this present
petition before us. Petitioner submits that THE COURT OF APPEALS
GRAVELY
ERRED:
1.
x x x IN DISMISSING THE PETITION
AND
DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DESPITE THE FACT THAT PETITIONER
SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 1, RULE 65, 1997
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2.
x
x x IN RULING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT DENIED
DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3.
x
x x IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION THAT "LONGEST FORCE" AND PETITIONER ARE JOINTLY
AND
SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR PAYMENT OF WAGES AND OVERTIME PAY DESPITE THE
CLEAR
SHOWING THAT PETITIONER HAVE ALREADY PAID THE SECURITY SERVICES THAT
WAS
RENDERED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4.
x
x x WHEN IT FAILED TO RULE THAT ONLY "LONGEST
FORCE"
SHOULD BE SOLELY AND ULTIMATELY LIABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE.[13]
We find the issues for
our resolution to be:
(1) Was it
error for the Court of Appeals to sustain its order of dismissal of
petitioner's
special civil action for certiorari, notwithstanding subsequent
compliance
with the requirements under the Rules
of Court by the petitioner?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) Did the
appellate
court err in not holding that petitioner was denied due process of law
by the NLRC? andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3) Did the
appellate
court grievously err in finding petitioner jointly and severally liable
with Longest Force for the payment of wage differentials and overtime
pay
owing to the private respondents?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the first issue, the
Court of Appeals in dismissing CA-G.R. SP No. 55416 observed that:
(1) the
verification
and certification of non-forum shopping was not signed by any duly
authorized
officer of petitioner but merely by petitioner's counsel; and
(2) the petition was
not accompanied by a copy of motion for reconsideration filed before
the
NLRC, thus violating Section 1,[14]
Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court.
Hence, a dismissal was
proper under Section 3,[15]
Rule 46 of the Rules.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In assailing the appellate
court's ruling, the petitioner appeals to our sense of compassion and
kind
consideration. It submits that the certification signed by its counsel
and attached to its petition filed with the Court of Appeals is
substantial
compliance with the requirement. Moreover, petitioner calls our
attention
to the fact that when it filed its motion for reconsideration before
the
Court of Appeals, a joint verification and certification of non-forum
shopping
duly signed by its Personnel Manager[16]
and a copy of the Motion for Reconsideration[17]
filed before the NLRC were attached therein. Thus, petitioner prays
that
we take a liberal stance to promote the ends of justice.cralaw:red
Petitioner's plea for
liberality, however, cannot be granted by the Court for reasons herein
elucidated.cralaw:red
It is settled that the
requirement in the Rules that the certification of non-forum shopping
should
be executed and signed by the plaintiff or the principal means that
counsel
cannot sign said certification unless clothed with special authority to
do so.[18]
The reason for this is that the plaintiff or principal knows better
than
anyone else whether a petition has previously been filed involving the
same case or substantially the same issues. Hence, a certification
signed
by counsel alone is defective and constitutes a valid cause for
dismissal
of the petition.[19]
In the case of natural persons, the Rule requires the parties
themselves
to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping. However, in the case of
the corporations, the physical act of signing may be performed, on
behalf
of the corporate entity, only by specifically authorized individuals
for
the simple reason that corporations, as artificial persons, cannot
personally
do the task themselves.[20]
In this case, not only was the originally appended certification signed
by counsel, but in its motion for reconsideration, still petitioner
utterly
failed to show that Ms. Rosanna Ignacio, its Personnel Manager who
signed
the verification and certification of non-forum shopping attached
thereto,
was duly authorized for this purpose. It cannot be gainsaid that
obedience
to the requirements of procedural rule is needed if we are to expect
fair
results therefrom. Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be
rationalized
by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, on this point,
no error could be validly attributed to respondent Court of Appeals. It
did not err in dismissing the petition for non-compliance with the
requirements
governing the certification of non-forum shopping.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Anent the second issue,
petitioner avers that there was denial of due process of law when the
Labor
Arbiter failed to have the case tried on the merits. Petitioner adds
that
the Arbiter did not observe the mandatory language of the then Sec.
5(b)
Rule V (now Section 11, per amendment in Resolution
No. 01-02, Series of 2002) of the NLRC New Rules of Procedure which
provided that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
If the
Labor
Arbiter finds no necessity of further hearing after the parties have
submitted
their position papers and supporting documents, he shall issue an Order
to that effect and shall inform the parties, stating the reasons
therefor
x x x.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner's
contention,
in our view, lacks sufficient basis. Well settled is the rule that the
essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or, as
applied
to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or
an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained
of.[23]
Not all cases require a trial-type hearing. The requirement of due
process
in labor cases before a Labor Arbiter is satisfied when the parties are
given the opportunity to submit their position papers to which they are
supposed to attach all the supporting documents or documentary evidence
that would prove their respective claims, in the event the Labor
Arbiter
determines that no formal hearing would be conducted or that such
hearing
was not necessary.[24]
In any event, as found by the NLRC, petitioner was given ample
opportunity
to present its side in several hearings conducted before the Labor
Arbiter
and in the position papers and other supporting documents that it had
submitted.
We find that such opportunity more than satisfies the requirement of
due
process in labor cases.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the third issue,
petitioner argues that it should not be held jointly and severally
liable
with Longest Force for underpayment of wages and overtime pay because
it
had been religiously and promptly paying the bills for the security
services
sent by Longest Force and that these are in accordance with the
statutory
minimum wage. Also, petitioner contends that it should not be held
liable
for overtime pay as private respondents failed to present proof that
overtime
work was actually performed. Lastly, petitioner claims that the Court
of
Appeals failed to render a decision that finally disposed of the case
because
it did not specifically rule on the immediate recourse of private
respondents,
that is, the matter of reimbursement between petitioner and Longest
Force
in accordance with Eagle Security Agency Inc. v. NLRC,[25]
and Philippine Fisheries Development Authority v. NLRC.[26]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner's liability
is joint and several with that of Longest Force, pursuant to Articles
106,
107 and 109 of the Labor
Code which provide as follows:
Art. 106.
CONTRACTOR
OR SUBCONTRACTOR.- Whenever an employer enters into a contract with
another
person for the performance of the former's work, the employees of the
contractor
and of the latter's subcontractor, if any, shall be paid in accordance
with the provisions of this Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the event that
the
contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wages of his employees in
accordance with this Code, the employer shall be jointly and severally
liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the
extent
of the work performed under the contract, in the same manner and extent
that he is liable to employees directly employed by him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Art. 107. INDIRECT
EMPLOYER.-
The provisions of the immediately preceding Article shall likewise
apply
to any person, partnership, association or corporation which, not being
an employer, contracts with an independent contractor for the
performance
of any work, task, job or project.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Art. 109. SOLIDARY
LIABILITY- The provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding,
every
employer or indirect employer shall be held responsible with his
contractor
or subcontractor for any violation of any provision of this Code. For
purposes
of determining the extent of their civil liability under this Chapter,
they shall be considered as direct employers.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, when
petitioner
contracted for security services with Longest Force as the security
agency
that hired private respondents to work as guards for the shipyard
corporation,
petitioner became an indirect employer of private respondents pursuant
to Article 107 abovecited. Following Article 106, when the agency as
contractor
failed to pay the guards, the corporation as principal becomes jointly
and severally liable for the guards' wages. This is mandated by the Labor
Code to ensure compliance with its provisions, including payment of
statutory minimum wage. The security agency is held liable by virtue of
its status as direct employer, while the corporation is deemed the
indirect
employer of the guards for the purpose of paying their wages in the
event
of failure of the agency to pay them. This statutory scheme gives the
workers
the ample protection consonant with labor and social justice provisions
of the 1987
Constitution.[27]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner cannot evade
its liability by claiming that it had religiously paid the compensation
of guards as stipulated under the contract with the security agency.
Labor
standards are enacted by the legislature to alleviate the plight of
workers
whose wages barely meet the spiraling costs of their basic needs. Labor
laws are considered written in every contract. Stipulations in
violation
thereof are considered null. Similarly, legislated wage increases are
deemed
amendments to the contract. Thus, employers cannot hide behind their
contracts
in order to evade their (or their contractors' or subcontractors')
liability
for noncompliance with the statutory minimum wage.[28]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, we must emphasize
that the solidary liability of petitioner with that of Longest Force
does
not preclude the application of the Civil Code provision on the right
of
reimbursement from his co-debtor by the one who paid.[29]
As held in Del Rosario & Sons Logging Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC,[30]
the joint and several liability imposed on petitioner is without
prejudice
to a claim for reimbursement by petitioner against the security agency
for such amounts as petitioner may have to pay to complainants, the
private
respondents herein. The security agency may not seek exculpation by
claiming
that the principal's payments to it were inadequate for the guards'
lawful
compensation. As an employer, the security agency is charged with
knowledge
of labor laws; and the adequacy of the compensation that it demands for
contractual services is its principal concern and not any other's.[31]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the issue of the
propriety of the award of overtime pay despite the alleged lack of
proof
thereof, suffice it to state that such involves a determination and
evaluation
of facts which cannot be done in a petition for review. Well
established
is the rule that in an appeal via certiorari, only questions of law may
be reviewed.[32]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
One final point. Upon
review of the award of backwages and attorney's fees, we discovered
certain
errors that happened in the addition of the amount of individual
backwages
that resulted in the erroneous total amount of backwages and attorney's
fees. These errors ought to be properly rectified now. Thus, the
correct
sum of individual backwages should be P126,648.40 instead of
P126,684.40,
while the correct sum of total backwages awarded and attorney's fees
should
be P3,926,100.40, and P392,610.04, instead of P3,927,216.40 and
P392,721.64,
respectively.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the Resolution
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 55416 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION.
Petitioner and Longest Force are held liable jointly and severally for
underpayment of wages and overtime pay of the security guards, without
prejudice to petitioner's right of reimbursement from Longest Force
Investigation
and Security Agency, Inc. The amounts payable to complaining security
guards,
herein private respondents, by way of total backwages and attorney's
fees
are hereby set at P3,926,100.40 and P392,610.04, respectively. Costs
against
petitioner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bellosillo,
Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr. and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[*]Some of the respondents' names were
designated
differently in some parts of the records. The variance is as follows:
Luis
Regondula, Manolito Catalan, Noel Alibadbad, Nestor Ferrer, Ricky
Andrada,
Augosto Quinto, Alfredo Azcarraga, Honario Hortecio and Isabelito
Cortes.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 12-13. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes with
Associate
Justices Teodoro P. Regino and Edgardo P. Cruz, concurring.
[2]
Id. at 69-80.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at 54-67.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id. at 8-9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
CA Rollo, p. 68, Position Paper of Longest Force but indicated as 1994
in Petitioner's Position Paper, see CA Rollo, p. 25.
[6]
Rollo, pp. 102-104.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Erroneous Sum. Should be P126,648.40.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Erroneous Sum. Should be P3,926,100.40.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Erroneous Product. Should be P392,610.04.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Rollo, pp. 63-67.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id. at 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id. at 26-27.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
SEC. 1. Petition for certiorari. — x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with
requirements. — x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.chan
robles virtual law
x x
x
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing
requirements
shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
[16]
CA Rollo, p. 122.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Id. at 114-121.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Condo Suite Club Travel, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 125671, 28 January
2000,
323 SCRA 679, 687.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Eslaban, Jr. v. Vda. de Onorio, G.R. No. 146062, 28 June 2001, 360 SCRA
230, 236.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
See BA Savings Bank v. Sia, G.R. No. 131214, 27 July 2000, 336 SCRA
484,
489.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Ortiz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127393, 4 December 1998, 299 SCRA
708,
712.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
As amended, this should now read as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SECTION 11. ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER SUBMITTING THE CASE FOR DECISION.
After
the parties have submitted their position papers and supporting
documents,
AND UPON EVALUATION OF THE CASE the Labor Arbiter finds no necessity of
further hearing, he shall issue an order expressly declaring the
submission
of the case for DECISION.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Sunset View Condominium Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 87799, 15
December
1993, 228 SCRA 466, 472.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Columbus Philippines Bus Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 114858-59, 7
September
2001, 364 SCRA 606, 621.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
G.R. Nos. 81314 & 81447, 18 May 1989, 173 SCRA 479.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
G.R. No. 94825, 4 September 1992, 213 SCRA 621.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Alpha Investigation and Security Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111722,
27 May 1997, 272 SCRA 653, 658.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Rosewood Processing, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 116476-84, 21 May 1998,
290
SCRA 408, 425.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
See Eagle Security Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, supra, at 486.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Civil Code. ART. 1217. Payment made by one of the solidary debtors
extinguishes
the obligation. If two or more solidary debtors offer to pay, the
creditor
may choose which offer to accept.
He who made the payment may claim from his co-debtors only the share
which
corresponds to each, with the interest for the payment already made. If
the payment is made before the debt is due, no interest for the
intervening
period may be demanded.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When one of the solidary debtors cannot, because of his insolvency,
reimburse
his share to the debtor paying the obligation, such share shall be
borne
by all his co-debtors, in proportion to the debt of each.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
G.R. No. L-64204, 31 May 1985, 136 SCRA 669, 673.
[31]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
Milestone Realty and Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 135999,
April
19, 2002, p. 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |