Air Philippines Corporation vs. Zamora

Only pleadings and documents material and pertinent to a prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion need be attached to a petition for certiorari; a petition lacking non-essential documents should not be dismissed, and any deficiency is cured by subsequent submission of the required documents. Furthermore, an order of reinstatement by a Labor Arbiter is immediately executory pending appeal, and the employer's obligation to pay the employee's salaries during the appeal period subsists even if the reinstatement order is later reversed.

Enrico Zamora was employed by Air Philippines Corporation (APC) as a B-737 Flight Deck Crew. After completing training for promotion to airplane captain, APC did not act on his promotion, prompting Zamora to file a complaint for constructive dismissal with the Labor Arbiter. APC maintained that Zamora had not been dismissed but had voluntarily left to join a rival airline, Grand Air. The dispute centers on the procedural requirements for a certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals and the substantive labor-law question of whether an employer must pay an employee's salaries pending appeal of a reinstatement order that was later reversed.

Enrico Zamora was employed with Air Philippines Corporation (APC) as a B-737 Flight Deck Crew. He applied for promotion to the position of airplane captain and underwent the requisite training program. After completing training, he inquired about his promotion, but APC did not act on it and instead continued to give him assignments as flight deck crew. Zamora considered APC's withholding of his promotion oppressive and unjust, and on May 14, 1997, he filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter for constructive dismissal. APC denied dismissing Zamora, pointing out that he was still employed when the complaint was filed and that he stopped reporting for work only on May 22, 1997, not because he was forced to resign, but because he had joined a rival airline, Grand Air.

On September 16, 1998, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Zamora, declaring APC liable for illegal dismissal and ordering reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, payment of backwages in the amount of ₱1,732,500, moral damages of ₱2,000,000, exemplary damages of ₱1,000,000, and attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent of the total award. Zamora immediately filed a motion for execution of the order of reinstatement, and on November 6, 1998, the Labor Arbiter granted the motion and issued a writ of execution directing APC to reinstate Zamora.

Meanwhile, APC appealed to the NLRC, which initially granted the appeal on February 10, 1999, holding that no dismissal occurred because Zamora had voluntarily terminated his employment. Upon Zamora's motion for reconsideration, however, the NLRC modified its resolution on December 17, 1999, affirming its earlier ruling but granting Zamora's petition for injunction and ordering APC to pay his unpaid salaries and allowances in the total amount of ₱198,502.30. The NLRC justified this award in its October 11, 2000 Resolution, reasoning that the reinstatement order was executory even pending appeal pursuant to Article 223 of the Labor Code, and that in the eyes of the law, Zamora was as if actually working from the date APC received the Labor Arbiter's decision.

APC then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, attaching certified true copies of the NLRC resolutions dated February 10, 1999, December 17, 1999, and October 11, 2000, and the Labor Arbiter's decision dated September 16, 1998, along with photocopies of certain execution-related orders. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on January 11, 2001 for failure to attach copies of all pleadings and other material portions of the record. APC filed a motion for reconsideration and attached the pleadings and portions of the case record required by the Court of Appeals, but the motion was denied on May 23, 2001 on the ground that APC had failed to contravene Zamora's opposition. APC then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

• Sufficiency of Attachments: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing its certiorari petition for failure to attach pleadings and portions of the record, because those documents had no bearing on the sole issue raised — whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in awarding unpaid salaries despite having found Zamora at fault for abandonment. The NLRC resolutions already contained summaries of the material allegations in the position papers.
• Cure of Deficiency: Petitioner maintained that the Court of Appeals erred in denying its motion for reconsideration, because it had already submitted copies of all pleadings and documents mentioned in its petition, thereby curing any purported deficiency.
• Improper Denial Ground: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in denying the motion for reconsideration on the new ground of failure to reply to respondent's opposition, since no order from the Court of Appeals had directed petitioner to file a reply, and a reply to an opposition is not filed as a matter of course.

• Mandatory Requirements: Respondent argued that the requirements under Section 1, Rule 65 are mandatory and jurisdictional, and that petitioner's failure to comply with them was a valid ground for dismissal of the petition.

• Certiorari Attachments: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for failure to attach copies of all pleadings and material portions of the record.
• Cure of Deficiency: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration despite the subsequent submission of the required pleadings and documents.
• Denial on New Ground: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the motion for reconsideration on the ground that petitioner failed to reply to respondent's opposition.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering petitioner to pay respondent ₱198,502.30 in unpaid salaries despite having found respondent guilty of abandonment.

• Certiorari Attachments: Yes. The Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition. Only pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent to the prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion need be attached; the NLRC resolutions already attached were sufficient to resolve the sole issue raised.
• Cure of Deficiency: Yes. The Court of Appeals erred in denying the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner's subsequent submission of the required documents cured any deficiency, warranting reinstatement or due course.
• Denial on New Ground: Yes. The Court of Appeals erred in denying the motion for reconsideration on the ground of failure to reply to the opposition. A reply is not filed as a matter of course, and no order had directed petitioner to file one.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The reinstatement order was executory pending appeal under Article 223 of the Labor Code, and the employer's noncompliance did not extinguish its obligation to pay the employee's salaries during the appeal period.

• Certiorari Attachments: The rules on certiorari attachments contemplate two sets of documents: first, certified true copies of the judgment, order, or resolution subject of the petition, and second, pleadings and portions of the case record material and pertinent to the petition, for which mere photocopies suffice. The test of relevancy is whether the document supports the material allegations in the petition and makes out a prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion. Not all pleadings must be attached; only those relevant and pertinent. Moreover, if the material allegations in a position paper are summarized in a questioned judgment already attached, no separate copy of the position paper is needed. In this case, the NLRC resolutions dated February 10, 1999, December 17, 1999, and October 11, 2000, which were already attached, contained the NLRC's purportedly contrary findings and summaries of the parties' positions. Copies of the position papers and other pleadings would have only cluttered the docket. The Court of Appeals was overzealous in enforcing the rules.

• Cure of Deficiency: A petition lacking an essential pleading or part of the case record may still be given due course or reinstated upon showing that the petitioner later submitted the documents required, or that the higher interest of justice would be served by deciding the case on the merits. Petitioner corrected the purported deficiency by submitting copies of the pleadings and other documents with its motion for reconsideration. It was therefore unreasonable for the Court of Appeals to have denied the motion.

• Denial on New Ground: A reply to an opposition to a motion for reconsideration is not filed as a matter of course; an order from the court may issue to direct the movant to file a reply. No such order came from the Court of Appeals. Furthermore, the opposition filed by respondent was not germane to the issue raised in the motion for reconsideration, and it was as though respondent passed in silence petitioner's arguments. If anything, it was respondent who failed to contravene petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The premise of the NLRC's award was that the Labor Arbiter's order of reinstatement was already the subject of an alias writ of execution even pending appeal. Although APC did not comply with the writ, its intransigence made it liable nonetheless for the salaries of respondent pending appeal. Pursuant to Article 223 of the Labor Code, an order of reinstatement is immediately executory pending appeal. Even if the order of reinstatement is reversed on appeal, the employer is obligated to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court. Conversely, if the employee has been reinstated during the appeal period and the order is reversed with finality, the employee is not required to reimburse whatever salary received. This rule is rooted in the State's police power to authorize immediate implementation of a reinstatement decision to stop a continuing threat to the survival of the dismissed employee and his family. Technicalities have no room in labor cases, where the Rules of Court are applied only in a suppletory manner.

• Relevancy Test for Certiorari Attachments — Only pleadings and portions of the case record that are relevant and pertinent to the petition need be attached to a petition for certiorari. The test of relevancy is whether the document will support the material allegations in the petition and make out a prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion sufficient to convince the court to give due course. If the material allegations in a position paper are summarized in a questioned judgment already attached, no separate copy of the position paper is required. The Court applied this test to hold that the NLRC resolutions already attached to APC's petition were sufficient, and the Court of Appeals erred in requiring additional pleadings irrelevant to the sole issue raised.

• Cure of Procedural Deficiency in Certiorari — A petition lacking an essential pleading or part of the case record may still be given due course or reinstated upon showing that the petitioner later submitted the documents required, or that the higher interest of justice would be served by deciding the case on the merits. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that APC's submission of the required documents with its motion for reconsideration cured any deficiency.

• Executory Nature of Reinstatement Orders Pending Appeal — An order of reinstatement by a Labor Arbiter is immediately executory even pending appeal, pursuant to Article 223 of the Labor Code. The employer is obligated to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the appeal period until reversal by the higher court. If the employee has been reinstated during the appeal period and the order is reversed with finality, the employee is not required to reimburse the salary received, more so if services were actually rendered. The Court applied this doctrine to affirm the NLRC's award of ₱198,502.30 in unpaid salaries, holding that APC's noncompliance with the writ of execution did not extinguish its obligation.

• Suppletory Application of Rules of Court in Labor Cases — Technicalities have no room in labor cases; the Rules of Court are applied only in a suppletory manner and only to effectuate the objectives of the Labor Code, not to defeat them. The Court invoked this principle to justify resolving the labor dispute on the merits rather than remanding it, and to affirm the NLRC's salary award notwithstanding procedural objections.

• "Only those pleadings, parts of case records and documents which are material and pertinent, in that they may provide the basis for a determination of a prima facie case of abuse of discretion, are required to be attached to a petition for certiorari." — This opening passage states the controlling rule on certiorari attachments, defining the scope of the documentary requirement and establishing the framework for the Court's analysis of the first issue.

• "The test of relevancy is whether the document in question will support the material allegations in the petition, whether said document will make out a prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion as to convince the court to give due course to the petition." — This formulation of the relevancy test is the canonical statement of the doctrine governing which documents must accompany a certiorari petition, and is frequently cited in subsequent procedural rulings.

• "Hence, even if the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court." — Quoted from Roquero vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc., this passage articulates the rule on the executory nature of reinstatement orders pending appeal, which the Court adopted as the basis for affirming the NLRC's salary award.

• "In short, with respect to decisions reinstating employees, the law itself has determined a sufficiently overwhelming reason for its execution pending appeal." — Quoted from Aris (Phil.) Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, this passage explains the policy rationale — rooted in police power — for the immediate executory character of reinstatement orders, underscoring the State's interest in protecting the survival of dismissed employees.

• Roquero vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 449 Phil. 437 (2003) — Controlling precedent on the executory nature of reinstatement orders pending appeal. The Court adopted its ruling that even if a reinstatement order is reversed on appeal, the employer is obligated to pay the employee's wages during the appeal period, and the employee need not reimburse salary received if the order is reversed.
• Aris (Phil.) Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 90501, Aug. 5, 1991, 200 SCRA 246 — Cited for the policy rationale underlying immediate execution of reinstatement orders, grounded in the State's police power to protect the survival of dismissed employees.
• Floren Hotel vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 155264, May 6, 2005, 458 SCRA 128 — Cited for the proposition that a petition lacking required documents may be reinstated upon subsequent submission, and that if material allegations in a position paper are summarized in a questioned judgment, attaching the judgment suffices.
• Quintano vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 144517, Dec. 13, 2004, 446 SCRA 193 — Cited for the rule that not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to be attached to a certiorari petition, and that the appellate court has discretion to determine the necessity for copies of pleadings and other documents.
• San Miguel Corporation vs. Aballa, G.R. No. 149011, June 28, 2005, 461 SCRA 392 — Cited for the principle that the exact nature of pleadings and parts of the case record which must accompany a certiorari petition is not specified, leaving much discretion to the appellate court.

• Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Requires that a petition for certiorari be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order, or resolution subject thereof, and copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto. The Court interpreted this provision as requiring only material and pertinent documents, not all pleadings indiscriminately.
• Section 3, Rule 46, Rules of Court — Requires that the petition 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. The Court noted that failure to comply is sufficient ground for dismissal, but clarified that this rule is not absolute and may be cured by subsequent submission.
• Article 223, Labor Code — Provides that an order of reinstatement by a Labor Arbiter is immediately executory pending appeal. The Court relied on this provision to affirm the NLRC's award of unpaid salaries, holding that the employer's obligation to pay the employee's wages during the appeal period subsists even if the reinstatement order is later reversed.

Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban (Chairperson), Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., and Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario concurred. No separate concurring opinions were noted.