Wenceslao vs. Makati Development Corporation

The dismissal of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is justified where the petitioner fails to state the material dates required under Section 3, Rule 46 and to attach certified true copies of the assailed judgments or resolutions, and such dismissal is not purely on a technicality where the appellate court also ruled on the substantive merits.

The petitioners were former construction workers of private respondent Makati Development Corporation (MDC), engaged in various construction projects including the West Tower @ One Serendra Project and the North Triangle Building Project. The dispute centers on whether the petitioners were project employees or regular employees under DOLE Order No. 19, Series of 1993, and whether their termination for refusing to transfer to another contractor, Asiapro Multi-Purpose Cooperative, constituted illegal dismissal.

The petitioners, numbering twenty-six, were former construction workers of Makati Development Corporation (MDC). They had been engaged in several of MDC's construction projects before being assigned to the West Tower @ One Serendra Project and the North Triangle Building Project. Claiming to be regular employees, the petitioners filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal and Monetary Claims before the Labor Arbiter, alleging that they were illegally dismissed for refusing to apply for and be transferred to another contractor, Asiapro Multi-Purpose Cooperative.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, relying on MDC's evidence showing that the petitioners had worked in several of its other projects before being engaged in the West Tower @ One Serendra and North Triangle Building projects. The Labor Arbiter ruled that repeated re-employment does not make a project employee a regular employee, affirming the petitioners' status as project employees. The Labor Arbiter, however, directed MDC to pay the aggregate sum of ₱118,314.78 representing the petitioners' prorated 13th month pay for 2015, while denying all other claims, including those of five complainants who were found not entitled to any monetary award.

On appeal, the NLRC Fourth Division affirmed in toto the Labor Arbiter's decision, denying the appeal filed by the 21 complainants for lack of merit. The petitioners sought reconsideration, but the NLRC denied it in its Resolution dated 26 July 2016. Undaunted, the petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC.

The CA dismissed the petition on two grounds: non-compliance with Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, and lack of merit on its face for failing to illustrate the NLRC's grave abuse of discretion. The CA cited several defects: the assailed NLRC decision and resolution were mere photocopies of purported certified true copies; the allegation as to material dates was incomplete; the Labor Arbiter's decision, the petitioners' Appeal Memorandum, and Motion for Reconsideration were not attached; and other relevant pleadings and documents necessary to aid the court were not appended. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, attaching certified true copies of the NLRC decision and resolution as well as legible copies of the Appeal Memorandum and Motion for Reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion, noting that the petitioners had haphazardly filed their petition and were not entitled to liberality since the petition was only partially rectified. The CA had also made a preliminary determination on the merits, affirming the labor tribunals' findings that the petitioners were project employees and were not illegally terminated, and noting that the petitioners failed to present evidence of their tenure or employment contract.

• Dismissal on Mere Technicality: Petitioners argued that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing their petition and subsequent motion for reconsideration due to non-submission of material documents needed to ascertain the facts of the case.
• Sufficiency of Attachments: Petitioners contended that the Appeal Memorandum and Motion for Reconsideration attached to the petition already sufficed to enable the CA to resolve the petition even without the other pleadings and portions of the records, citing the guideposts in Air Philippines Corporation vs. Zamora.
• Liberal Application of the Rules: Petitioners invoked the liberal application of the rules, arguing that the CA should have required them first to submit the lacking documents instead of dismissing the petition outright based on a technicality.

• No Substantial Compliance: Respondents argued that the petitioners do not deserve the liberality of the CA absent a showing of substantial or subsequent compliance with the procedural requirements or that it would serve the higher interests of justice to decide the case on the merits.
• Inapplicability of Air Philippines: Respondents insisted that Air Philippines is inapplicable because the petitioners had totally omitted to append the relevant and material portions of the case records, and that the petitioners were mistaken in their notion that attachments may be dispensed with when material allegations are set forth in the petition and other attachments.
• No Grave Abuse of Discretion: Respondents contended that the petition does not demonstrate the NLRC's grave abuse of discretion, nor does it show that the NLRC's factual findings are unsupported by substantial evidence, noting that such findings coincided with the Labor Arbiter's own findings.
• Respect for Labor Tribunals' Findings: Respondents invoked the principle that labor tribunals' rulings and factual findings are generally accorded respect due to their expertise and are accorded finality if supported by substantial evidence.

• Proper Characterization of the Petition: Whether the petition, though denominated as a Rule 45 petition, should be treated as a Rule 65 petition or an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.
• Attachment of Certified True Copies and Pertinent Records: Whether the CA was justified in dismissing the petition for certiorari due to the petitioners' failure to attach the certified true copies of the assailed NLRC decision and resolution and other pertinent portions of the case records.
• Material Dates Requirement: Whether the CA was justified in affirming the dismissal of the petition due to the petitioners' failure to state the material dates required under Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Rule 65.

• Proper Characterization of the Petition: Treated as an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. The Court resolved to treat the petition as a Rule 45 appeal in the spirit of liberality, notwithstanding the allegations of grave abuse of discretion, because the proper remedy to assail a CA resolution dismissing a certiorari petition is appeal under Rule 45, not a special civil action under Rule 65.
• Attachment of Certified True Copies and Pertinent Records: Yes. The CA was justified in initially dismissing the petition because only photocopies, not certified true copies, of the NLRC decision and resolution were attached, and the pleadings and other papers filed before the labor arbiter and the NLRC were not appended, leaving the CA without basis to determine whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion.
• Material Dates Requirement: Yes. The failure to state the material dates is sufficient ground for dismissal under Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Rule 65, and the CA was justified in affirming the dismissal because the petitioners failed to supply the missing dates even on motion for reconsideration despite being given two opportunities to do so.

• Proper Characterization of the Petition: While the petition was styled as a "Petition for Review on Certiorari" under Rule 45, its contents alleged grave abuse of discretion by the CA, an averment apposite in a Rule 65 petition. However, because what the petitioners sought to annul were the CA's resolutions dismissing their certiorari petition — final orders completely disposing of the petition — the proper remedy was an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, not a special civil action under Rule 65. A Rule 65 petition will not lie where a plain, adequate, and speedy remedy is available. Citing Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast Phils., Inc. vs. NLRC, the Court emphasized that the existence of the right of appeal prohibits resort to certiorari. In the spirit of liberality, the Court treated the petition as a Rule 45 appeal, noting the petitioners' two motions for extension expressly sought under Rule 45.

• Attachment of Certified True Copies and Pertinent Records: Section 1, Rule 65 requires that the petition 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 CA correctly noted that only photocopies were attached. The rationale, as explained in Pinakamasarap Corporation vs. NLRC, is to ensure that the copy of the judgment sought to be reviewed is a faithful reproduction of the original so that the reviewing court has a definitive basis to determine whether grave abuse of discretion was committed. On motion for reconsideration, the petitioners submitted certified true copies and some documents, and consistent with Air Philippines Corporation vs. Zamora, the CA could have reinstated the case. However, the CA's refusal to proceed was justified because the petitioners still failed to address the lacking statement of material dates despite clear notice of such violation.

• Material Dates Requirement: Section 3, Rule 46 requires three material dates in a Rule 65 petition: (1) when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received; (2) when a motion for new trial or reconsideration was filed; and (3) when notice of denial thereof was received. The petition filed with the CA failed to state the first and second dates. The purpose of the requirement, as stated in Santos vs. Court of Appeals, is to determine the timeliness of the petition, which must be filed within sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution assailed. Without the material dates, the CA could not determine when the period commenced or whether the motion for reconsideration was filed on time. The petitioners were given two chances to comply — first in the original petition and again on motion for reconsideration — and twice failed. The CA fittingly affirmed the dismissal, observing that the petitioners had haphazardly filed their petition and were not entitled to liberality. Moreover, the CA had actually considered the merits, affirming the labor tribunals' factual findings that the petitioners were project employees and were not illegally terminated. Factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are conclusive upon the parties and binding on the Supreme Court.

• Material Dates Requirement in Rule 65 Petitions — A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must state three material dates: (1) when notice of the judgment, final order, or resolution was received; (2) when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed; and (3) when notice of denial thereof was received. The purpose is to determine the timeliness of the petition, which must be filed within sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution assailed. Failure to state these dates is sufficient ground for dismissal under Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Rule 65. The Court applied this doctrine in affirming the CA's dismissal, as the petitioners failed to state the first and second material dates and did not rectify the omission even on motion for reconsideration.

• Attachment of Certified True Copies in Certiorari Petitions — A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must be accompanied by certified true copies of the assailed judgment, order, or resolution, and copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto. Photocopies do not suffice. The rationale is to ensure that the copy is a faithful reproduction of the original so the reviewing court has a definitive basis for determining whether grave abuse of discretion was committed. The Court found the CA justified in dismissing the petition initially because only photocopies were attached.

• Reinstatement After Dismissal for Procedural Defects — If copies of essential pleadings or portions of the case records are later submitted, the court may in the exercise of sound discretion reinstate the case and decide it on the merits. This is discretionary, not mandatory. The Court found that the CA's refusal to reinstate was justified because the petitioners still failed to comply with the material dates requirement despite two opportunities.

• Proper Remedy Against CA Dismissal of a Certiorari Petition — The proper remedy to assail a CA resolution dismissing a petition for certiorari is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, because the CA's resolution is a final order and a plain, adequate, and speedy remedy (appeal) is available. The existence of the right of appeal prohibits resort to certiorari. The Court treated the petition as a Rule 45 appeal in the spirit of liberality.

• Conclusiveness of NLRC Factual Findings Affirmed by the CA — Factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive upon the parties and binding on the Supreme Court when supported by substantial evidence. The Court declined to inquire into the factual matters of employment status and illegal dismissal, as such inquiry is not permissible in a Rule 45 petition.

• "The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition." — This is the Court's quotation of Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, establishing the mandatory consequence of non-compliance with procedural requirements in certiorari petitions, including the failure to state material dates.

• "The requirement of setting forth the three (3) dates in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is for the purpose of determining its timeliness. Such a petition is required to be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or Resolution sought to be assailed." — This passage from Santos vs. Court of Appeals, quoted by the Court, articulates the rationale behind the material dates requirement and why its omission is fatal to a certiorari petition.

• "There is a sound reason behind this policy and it is to ensure that the copy of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed is a faithful reproduction of the original so that the reviewing court would have a definitive basis in its determination of whether the court, body or tribunal which rendered the assailed judgment or order committed grave abuse of discretion." — This passage from Pinakamasarap Corporation vs. NLRC, quoted by the Court, explains the policy rationale for requiring certified true copies of assailed judgments in certiorari petitions.

• Air Philippines Corporation vs. Zamora, 529 Phil. 718 (2006) — Cited for the guideposts on the necessity of attaching pleadings and portions of the case records to a certiorari petition: (1) only relevant and pertinent documents need be attached; (2) a document need not be appended if its contents are found in another attached document; and (3) a petition lacking an essential pleading may be reinstated upon later submission of the required documents. The Court applied these guideposts but found that the CA's refusal to reinstate was still justified due to the unresolved material dates defect.

• Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast Phils., Inc. vs. NLRC, 716 Phil. 500 (2013) — Cited for the rule that the proper remedy to obtain a reversal of a judgment on the merits, final order, or resolution is appeal, and that the existence and availability of the right of appeal prohibits resort to certiorari under Rule 65. The Court relied on this precedent in characterizing the petition as a Rule 45 appeal rather than a Rule 65 petition.

• Pinakamasarap Corporation vs. NLRC, 534 Phil. 222 (2006) — Cited for the rationale behind the requirement to attach certified true copies of the assailed judgment or order, ensuring a faithful reproduction so the reviewing court has a definitive basis for determining grave abuse of discretion.

• Santos vs. Court of Appeals, 413 Phil. 41 (2001) — Cited for the material dates requirement in Rule 65 petitions and the purpose thereof — to determine timeliness. The Court found the CA could not determine when the filing period commenced because the material dates were not stated.

• Fuji Television Network, Inc. vs. Espiritu, 749 Phil. 388 (2014) — Cited for the doctrine that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive upon the parties and binding on the Supreme Court.

• Section 3, Rule 46, Rules of Court — Requires that petitions filed under Rule 65 indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration was filed, and when notice of denial thereof was received. Provides that failure to comply with any requirement is sufficient ground for dismissal. The Court applied this provision in affirming the CA's dismissal, as the petitioners failed to state the first and second material dates.

• Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs the petition for certiorari and requires that it 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. The Court applied this provision in upholding the CA's initial dismissal for the petitioners' failure to attach certified true copies.

• DOLE Order No. 19, Series of 1993, Sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.2, and 3.3 — Governs project employment in the construction industry. Section 2.1 defines project employees; Section 2.2 lists indicators of project employment; Section 3.2 provides that project employees are not entitled to separation pay upon completion of the project; and Section 3.3 provides exceptions, including when aggregate continuous employment is at least one year. The CA relied on these provisions in its preliminary determination that the petitioners were project employees, a finding the Supreme Court declined to disturb.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, and Leonen, JJ., concurred. Gesmundo, J., was on leave.