View full case

WILLIAM R. WENCESLAO v. MAKATI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

FACTS:

The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) to reverse the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in favor of the private respondents. The CA dismissed the petition for not submitting all the necessary documents to verify the facts.

The petitioners argued that not all documents are required to be attached to the petition, citing a previous case that established the test of relevancy in determining whether a document should be attached. They claimed that their Appeal Memorandum and Motion for Reconsideration were sufficient for the CA to resolve the petition.

The petitioners also invoked the liberal application of rules, suggesting that the CA should have given them the opportunity to submit the missing documents instead of dismissing the petition outright based on a technicality.

On the other hand, the private respondents argued that the petitioners should not be given leeway without showing substantial or subsequent compliance with procedural requirements. They emphasized the omission of relevant portions of the case records and disagreed with the petitioners' view that attachments can be dispensed with if the petition already includes material allegations and arguments.

The private respondents further contended that the petition did not prove the NLRC's grave abuse of discretion and that the NLRC's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence. They argued that labor tribunals' rulings and factual findings deserve respect and finality if supported by substantial evidence.

The main issue is whether the CA was justified in dismissing the petition for certiorari due to the petitioners' failure to attach the necessary case records.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petition should be treated as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 or an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari due to procedural lapses and lack of substantive merit.

  3. Whether the failure to attach legible duplicate original or certified true copies of the judgment, order, resolution or ruling subject of the petition is a ground for dismissal of the petition;

  4. Whether the failure to state the material dates in a petition for certiorari is a ground for dismissal of the petition.

  5. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the liberal application of the rules in their petition for certiorari.

  6. Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) properly considered the merits of the petition despite the lack of certified true copies of the NLRC decision and resolution.

  7. Whether the CA properly affirmed the finding that the petitioners were project employees and not entitled to separation pay.

  8. Whether or not the appointment of the defendant-appellee as a judge ad hoc was valid.

  9. Whether or not the defendant-appellee's decision was void for lack of jurisdiction.

RULING:

  1. The petition should be treated as an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. The Court held that if the petition is to be treated as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, it should be dismissed because there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available, which is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. The Court applied the principle that the proper remedy to reverse a judgment on the merits, final order, or resolution is an appeal unless there is no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available.

  2. The CA did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari due to procedural lapses and lack of substantive merit. The Court agreed with the CA's finding that the petitioners failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 46 and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The failure to state the material dates and to attach certified true copies of the assailed decision and resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), as well as other pertinent documents, was ground enough for the dismissal of the petition. The Court also noted that the petition did not establish the whimsical exercise of discretion alleged against the NLRC.

  3. Yes, the failure to attach legible duplicate original or certified true copies of the judgment, order, resolution or ruling subject of the petition is a ground for dismissal of the petition. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the copy of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed is a faithful reproduction of the original. Without this basis, the reviewing court cannot determine whether the court, body or tribunal which rendered the assailed judgment or order committed grave abuse of discretion.

  4. Yes, the failure to state the material dates in a petition for certiorari is a ground for dismissal of the petition. Section 3 of Rule 46 requires that the petition state the date when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received, the date when a motion for new trial or for reconsideration was filed, and the date when notice of the denial thereof was received. Failure to include these material dates renders the petition dismissible. The purpose of stating these material dates is to determine the timeliness of the petition, as it must be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed.

  5. The petitioners are not entitled to the liberal application of the rules. The CA noted that they haphazardly filed their petition in grave disregard of the rules of procedure. They were given two chances to comply with the requirement of including material dates, but they failed to do so both times. The CA ruled that they are not entitled to the liberality of the rules since their petition was only partially rectified.

  6. The CA properly considered the merits of the petition despite the lack of certified true copies of the NLRC decision and resolution. The CA made a preliminary determination regarding the status of employment of the petitioners and the validity of their termination based on the petition and its attachments. The CA affirmed the factual findings of the NLRC that the petitioners were project employees and were not illegally terminated.

  7. The CA properly affirmed the finding that the petitioners were project employees and not entitled to separation pay. The petitioners did not present any evidence, such as a contract of employment or other relevant proof, to establish their tenure. Without basis to rule on their employment status, the CA relied on the findings of the NLRC that they were not entitled to separation pay. Factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies, when affirmed by the CA, are generally accorded respect and finality, and bind the Supreme Court when supported by substantial evidence.

  8. The Supreme Court held that the appointment of the defendant-appellee as a judge ad hoc was valid. The Court emphasized that the respondent was appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court and the specific requirements of the case.

  9. The Court ruled that the decision rendered by the defendant-appellee was void for lack of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the defendant-appellee exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon him as a judge ad hoc, thereby rendering his decision null and void.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A petition should be dismissed if it is the wrong remedy. In this case, the petition should have been pursued as an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 instead of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.

  • The existence and availability of the right to appeal precludes the resort to certiorari unless there is no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available.

  • The failure to comply with the requirements of the Rules of Court is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of a petition.

  • The petitioner must attach certified true copies of the judgment, order, or resolution subject of the petition, as well as other relevant and pertinent pleadings and documents, in accordance with the Rules of Court.

  • The failure to attach legible duplicate original or certified true copies of the judgment, order, resolution or ruling subject of the petition is a ground for dismissal of the petition.

  • The failure to state the material dates in a petition for certiorari is a ground for dismissal of the petition.

  • Compliance with the rules of procedure is crucial in any legal proceeding and failure to comply may result in the dismissal of a petition. Liberal application of the rules cannot be demanded if there is grave disregard of the rules. (Cited in ruling on issue 1)

  • The Court of Appeals may consider the merits of a petition for certiorari despite procedural lapses, but only if the petition and its attachments provide enough basis for a preliminary determination of the issues. (Cited in ruling on issue 2)

  • Factual findings of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies are generally accorded respect and finality, and bind the Supreme Court when supported by substantial evidence. (Cited in ruling on issue 3)

  • Validity of the appointment of a judge ad hoc

  • Jurisdiction of a judge ad hoc