Bacolor vs. VL Makabali Memorial Hospital, Inc.

A certificate against forum shopping signed by some, but not all, petitioners substantially complies with the Rules when all petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action; verification is substantially complied with when at least one petitioner with sufficient knowledge signs. Procedural rules must be liberally construed to serve substantial justice, particularly when the labor arbiter and the NLRC reach conflicting findings.

Six resident physicians—Drs. Lynman Bacolor, Jeffrey Galura, Helen Torres, Fritzie Villegas, Raymond Canlas, and Zheila Torres—together with Dr. Dax Tidula, filed an amended complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against VL Makabali Memorial Hospital, Inc., its owner/president Alejandro Makabali, and ER Manager Melchor Catambing. They alleged that after their fixed-term contracts expired, they continued to be employed but were later told to resign and re-apply under one-year contracts. Upon refusal, they were demoted to assistant physicians in the operating room. Some were charged with rule violations; Drs. Bacolor and Galura received termination notices. The Labor Arbiter found illegal dismissal. The NLRC reversed, finding no constructive dismissal and deeming Drs. Bacolor and Galura validly dismissed for dishonesty. Petitioners sought certiorari before the CA, which dismissed the petition on technical grounds.

• Employment and Alleged Constructive Dismissal: Petitioners were resident physicians at VL Makabali Memorial Hospital under fixed-term contracts that were renewed or continued beyond expiration. In May 2006, ER Manager Catambing and Dr. Lopez instructed them to resign and re-apply as fixed-term employees, offering P27,000.00 as “gratitude” pay and requiring a waiver. Petitioners refused. They alleged they were then demoted to assistant physicians in the Operating Room. Drs. Bacolor and Galura received termination notices on June 30, 2006 after being charged with dishonesty for referring patients to outside laboratories. Drs. Helen, Villegas, and Canlas were not dismissed but claimed constructive dismissal by demotion. Dr. Zheila was absent from July 2006; the Hospital regarded this as abandonment of work.
• Dr. Tidula’s Circumstances: Dr. Tidula, hired in 2001 and continuously engaged, implemented an arrangement where relievers punched the time card of an absent physician for accounting purposes and received that physician’s salary. In February 2006, when Dr. Lising went on leave, relievers punched her card. Dr. Tidula too was ordered to resign, refused, was reassigned to the OR, and later dismissed for violating the timekeeping procedure. He claimed he never received a notice to explain; the Hospital insisted a notice had been sent by courier.
• Lower Tribunals’ Findings: The Labor Arbiter found all complainants illegally dismissed and awarded backwages, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages of P100,000.00 each, and attorney’s fees. The NLRC reversed, holding that reassignment to assistant physician did not materially alter duties and thus no constructive dismissal occurred; Drs. Bacolor and Galura were validly dismissed for dishonesty; and Dr. Zheila’s failure to sign the verification/certificate was noted. The CA dismissed the ensuing certiorari petition solely on procedural infirmities without reaching the merits.

• Substantial Compliance with Verification: Petitioners argued that three of six petitioners personally executed verifications; counsel’s signature for the other three did not invalidate the petition because counsel possessed the authentic records and had knowledge of the facts.
• Substantial Compliance with Certificate Against Forum Shopping: Petitioners maintained that the signature of one petitioner on the certificate constitutes substantial compliance because all petitioners shared a common interest and invoked a common cause of action arising from identical factual circumstances.
• Compliance with Rule 46, Section 3: Petitioners contended that Dr. Tidula was included as a respondent in the body of the petition and served through counsel; his actual address was unknown and the omission was not fatal because he was represented by counsel.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion by NLRC: Petitioners faulted the CA for failing to find that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Hospital’s appeal despite an allegedly deficient appeal bond and in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s ruling without adequate evidence.

• Invalid Verification/Certificate: Respondents asserted that the Petition for Certiorari was properly dismissed because the counsel who signed for three petitioners lacked a special power of attorney, rendering the certificate against forum shopping fatally defective.
• Improper Impleading of Dr. Tidula: Respondents argued that the petition violated Rule 46 by naming Dr. Tidula as a respondent.
• Lack of Entitlement to Claims: Respondents maintained that petitioners were not entitled to monetary awards.

• Verification and Certificate Against Forum Shopping: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari on the ground of a defective verification and certificate of non-forum shopping, given that three of six petitioners personally signed and the parties shared a common interest.
• Compliance with Rule 46, Section 3: Whether the failure to indicate Dr. Tidula in the title of the petition as a party respondent and to state his actual address warranted outright dismissal.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion by NLRC: Whether the Court of Appeals should have found that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the Hospital’s appeal and reversing the Labor Arbiter’s ruling.

• Verification and Certificate Against Forum Shopping: Dismissal was unwarranted. Although counsel’s execution of the certificate without a special power of attorney was invalid, the three personally signed verifications constituted substantial compliance. Verification is a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement; substantial compliance exists when at least one petitioner with sufficient knowledge attests to the truth and good faith of the allegations. As for the certificate against forum shopping, the rule requiring all petitioners’ signatures admits of relaxation where all share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action. Here, the petitioners were resident physicians asserting illegal dismissal under similar circumstances, and the signature of three sufficed. The conflicting findings of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, together with the apparent merits, justified a liberal construction of the rules.
• Compliance with Rule 46, Section 3: The omission of Dr. Tidula from the title and the lack of his actual address were not fatal defects. Dr. Tidula was named as a respondent in the body of the petition; the CA could have ordered rectification of the title. The failure to state his address was cured because he was represented by counsel, and service upon counsel constituted substantial compliance with the Rules.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion by NLRC: The Court did not resolve this substantive question. The case was remanded to the CA for proper disposition on the merits, including the issue of whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.

• Altres v. Empleo Summary of Principles on Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping: (1) A distinction must be drawn between defective verification and defective certification; (2) Defective verification does not render a pleading fatally defective—the court may order correction or waive strict compliance; (3) Verification is substantially complied with when one with sufficient knowledge swears to the truth and good faith of the allegations; (4) A defective certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by amendment, but substantial compliance or special circumstances may warrant relaxation; (5) The certification must be signed by all petitioners, but the signature of only one suffices when they share a common interest and cause of action; (6) The certification must be signed by the party, not counsel, unless counsel is armed with a special power of attorney. Here, principles (3) and (5) were applied to find substantial compliance.
• Substantial Compliance with Verification: The signature of at least one petitioner who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations satisfies the verification requirement. The three verifications signed by Drs. Bacolor, Galura, and Helen were sufficient assurance of good faith.
• Substantial Compliance with Certificate Against Forum Shopping in Collective Actions: When all petitioners share a common interest and invoke the same cause of action or defense, the signature of some, rather than all, on the certificate against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rules. This prevents outright dismissal of meritorious collective claims on technicalities.
• Liberal Construction of Procedural Rules: Rules of procedure exist to facilitate the speedy and efficient administration of justice, not to obstruct it. Where strict application would result in a denial of substantial justice—especially when the Labor Arbiter and NLRC arrive at opposite conclusions—the rules may be liberally construed to allow resolution on the merits.

• “Rules of procedure must be used to achieve speedy and efficient administration of justice and not derail it. When strict application of the rules on verification and non-forum shopping will result in patent denial of substantial justice, these rules may be construed liberally. After all, the ends of justice are better served when cases are determined on the merits, not on mere technicality.” — The controlling philosophy behind the decision.
• “The verification of a pleading is a formal and not a jurisdictional requirement. It is intended to assure that the allegations in a pleading are true and correct. As such, the court may order the correction of unverified pleadings, or it may act on them and waive strict compliance with the rules.” — Defines the nature and purpose of verification.
• “Under reasonable or justifiable situations, such as when the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of one of them in the certificate against forum shopping is considered substantial compliance with the rules.” — The ratio decidendi on the certificate requirement.

• Altres v. Empleo, 594 Phil. 246 (2008) — Encapsulated the six governing tenets on verification and certification against forum shopping; served as the primary framework for the Court’s analysis.
• Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo, 497 Phil. 635 (2005) — Applied to support the rule that the signature of one petitioner with sufficient knowledge constitutes substantial compliance with the verification requirement.
• SKM Art Craft Corporation v. Bauca, G.R. Nos. 171282 & 183484, November 27, 2013, 710 SCRA 652 — Cited for the propositions that common interest justifies signature by only some co-parties and that conflicting LA and NLRC findings warrant resolution on the merits.
• Abaria v. National Labor Relations Commission, 678 Phil. 64 (2011) — Applied to show that employees in a collective illegal dismissal case shared a common interest, making the signature of 47 out of 88 petitioners substantial compliance.
• Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corp., 477 Phil. 540 (2004) — Used to justify relaxation of the certificate requirement when only two of 25 petitioners signed, given the “apparent merits of the substantive aspects of the case” and conflicting labor rulings.

• Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court (Certification Against Forum Shopping) — Counsel’s execution of the certificate without a special power of attorney contravened this rule, but substantial compliance was found through the three personally signed certificates.
• Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court (Contents and Filing of Petition) — The omission of a respondent’s name from the title and his actual address did not mandate dismissal. The body of the petition included him, and service upon counsel substantially complied with the rule.

Carpio, J. (Chairperson), Brion, J., Mendoza, J., and Leonen, J., concurred.