View full case

RUFINA S. JORGE v. ALBERTO C. MARCELO

FACTS:

Private respondents filed cases against R. Jorgensons Swine Multiplier Corporation and Romeo J. Jorge for illegal dismissal, non-payment of service incentive leave pay, and 13th month pay. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal but ordered the respondents to pay monetary awards. Writs of execution were issued to collect the monetary award. Rufina S. Jorge filed a Third Party Claim asserting that the levy on her property was improper and should be lifted. The Labor Arbiter dismissed her claim, and the property was subsequently sold at public auction. Rufina's appeals to the NLRC and the CA were denied.

In another aspect of the case, the petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of presenting competent evidence of identity in a notarized document. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice explicitly require such evidence to be presented. The petitioner, although arguing that the rules do not require indicating the details of competent evidence in the document, failed to provide the necessary identification cards or documents. Consequently, there is a defect in the petitioner's oath, despite having sufficient evidence to support her case.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioner is required to present competent evidence of identity in accordance with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

  2. Whether the failure to indicate details of competent evidence of identity on the notarized document is a ground for dismissal of the petition.

  3. Whether or not the failure of the notary public to state in the notarial certificate the competent evidence of identity of the affiant renders the certificate invalid.

  4. Whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for extraordinary remedies due to the failure to post a cash or surety bond.

  5. Whether or not the June 16, 2016 Order of the Labor Arbiter violated the requirements of Rule XI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended.

  6. Whether the 2015 amendments to the NLRC Rules should apply to Rufina's Third Party Claim

  7. Whether the failure to post a cash or surety bond renders the Third Party Claim defective

  8. Whether the phrase "married to Romeo J. Jorge" in the title of the property indicates that it is a conjugal property

  9. Whether the NLRC properly ruled on the Third Party Claim

RULING:

  1. The petitioner is not exempted from presenting competent evidence of identity even if she is personally known to the notary public. Presentation of competent evidence of identity is still required by Rule II, Sec. 12 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

  2. The failure to indicate details of competent evidence of identity on the notarized document does not automatically mean that it was not presented to the notary public. The absence of such details pertains to the notary public and should not be a ground for dismissal of the petition.

  3. No, the failure of the notary public to state in the notarial certificate the competent evidence of identity of the affiant does not render the certificate invalid.

  4. Yes, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for extraordinary remedies due to the failure to post a cash or surety bond.

  5. Yes, the June 16, 2016 Order of the Labor Arbiter violated the requirements of Rule XI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended.

  6. The 2015 amendments to the NLRC Rules shall govern Rufina's Third Party Claim because it was yet to be resolved by the labor arbiter at the time. Procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, there being no vested rights in rules of procedure.

  7. Failure to post a bond does not make the Third Party Claim automatically defective or subject to outright denial. The Third Party Claim stands unaffected and must be resolved on its substantive merits.

  8. The phrase "married to Romeo J. Jorge" in the title of the property does not prove that the property is a conjugal property. It is merely descriptive of Rufina's civil status as the registered owner and does not indicate co-ownership with her husband.

  9. The NLRC should have ruled on the merits of Rufina's other prayers in her Third Party Claim, rather than outright denying it. The NLRC should have determined if Rufina is the sole owner of the property and, if so, lifted the levy on execution.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The presentation of competent evidence of identity is generally required under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, unless the signatory is personally known to the notary public.

  • The details of competent evidence of identity need not be indicated on the notarized document and the failure to do so does not automatically mean that it was not presented.

  • The rule requiring competent evidence of identity may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice and based on the merits of the case.

  • The competent evidence of identity of an affiant is not required to be stated in the notarial certificate. The notary public is only required to state that the affiant is personally known to him/her or has produced a competent evidence of identity. (Doctrine of Competent Evidence of Identity)

  • The NLRC cannot dismiss a petition for extraordinary remedies solely based on the failure to post a cash or surety bond. The NLRC should have decided the petition on its merits and determined whether or not the Labor Arbiter committed grave abuse of discretion. (Doctrine of Grave Abuse of Discretion)

  • The June 16, 2016 Order of the Labor Arbiter violated the requirements of Rule XI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended, in relation to the Third Party Claim. The Labor Arbiter failed to consider the amendments made by NLRC En Banc Resolution No. 14-15, which modified the requirements for a valid third party claim. (Doctrine of Validity of Third Party Claim)

  • Procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, there being no vested rights in rules of procedure.

  • Failure to post a bond does not automatically render a Third Party Claim defective or subject to dismissal.

  • The phrase "married to" in a title of a property does not necessarily prove conjugal ownership. Proof of acquisition during the marriage is required for the presumption of conjugal nature to apply.

  • The NLRC should rule on the merits of a Third Party Claim and determine ownership before outright denial.