View full case

DIGITEL EMPLOYEES UNION v. DIGITAL TELECOMS PHILIPPINES

FACTS:

This case involves a labor dispute between DIGITEL and the union called DEU. The former employees of DIGITEL filed a complaint before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) against DIGITEL after the company terminated their employment due to redundancy. The redundant workers argued that their termination was unjust and improper.

Upon filing their complaint, the DEU members staged lightning pickets at PLDT facilities, alleging that PLDT backed out of its commitment to interview the former DIGITEL workers. In response, DEU filed a manifestation and motion seeking the suspension of the termination, implementation of a court decision, and reinstatement of the DIGITEL workers in the payroll.

DIGITEL countered by filing its own manifestation and motion, requesting that the issue be resolved either by denying DEU's motions based on the supervening event of redundancy declaration, or by certifying the matter to the NLRC for resolution on the validity of the redundancy declaration.

The Secretary of Labor and Employment certified the matter to the NLRC to determine the validity of the redundancy declaration. The NLRC conducted proceedings and eventually issued a decision upholding DIGITEL's redundancy declaration. It declared that the redundancy program resulting in the termination of 86 union members was valid. The NLRC ordered DIGITEL to pay the separation pay package and back wages to the terminated employees.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in dismissing DEU's petition for certiorari.

  2. Whether the failure to comply with the requirements under Rule 46, Section 3 of the Rules of Court is sufficient ground to dismiss the petition.

  3. Whether or not the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in dismissing DEU's petition for certiorari based on the alleged failure to comply with the resolution requiring DEU to submit its resolution and address.

  4. Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion in not finding that DEU actually complied with the said order.

  5. Whether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in summarily dismissing DEU's motion for reconsideration despite the submission of proof of compliance.

  6. Whether or not the CA committed manifest and serious error in dismissing the petition.

  7. Whether the verification and certification of non-forum shopping in DEU's petition for certiorari was defective.

  8. Whether the defects in the verification and certification of non-forum shopping can be cured.

  9. Whether the trial court erred in granting the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

  10. Whether the trial court erred in excluding the evidence of the defendant.

RULING:

  1. No, the CA did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing DEU's petition for certiorari. DEU failed to comply with the requirements under Rule 46, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, specifically regarding the submission of petitioner's and respondent's addresses and the authority of DEU's president to sign the verification/certification on behalf of the union. The failure to comply with these requirements is sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

  2. Yes, the failure to comply with the requirements under Rule 46, Section 3 of the Rules of Court is sufficient ground to dismiss the petition. The said provision clearly states that the failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

  3. The petition is meritorious.

  4. The first issue involves the propriety of the CA's dismissal of DEU's petition for certiorari due to the alleged failure to submit the required documents. The second issue questions the CA's failure to find DEU's compliance with the order. The third issue pertains to the CA's summary dismissal of DEU's motion for reconsideration despite the submission of proof of compliance. The fourth issue raises the CA's alleged grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition, which would cause irreparable damage to DEU and the workers.

  5. The Court ruled that DEU timely filed its compliance but the CA based its dismissal on a mistaken assumption. DEU submitted proof that the compliance was submitted on time, including an affidavit of service and certifications from various authorities. These documents clearly show that DEU filed and served the compliance through registered mail on December 15, 2014. Thus, the CA erred in dismissing the petition on procedural grounds.

  6. The Court ruled in favor of DEU and held that the verification and certification of non-forum shopping in DEU's petition for certiorari was substantially compliant with the Rules of Court. The Court recognized the authority of the President of a corporation to sign a verification and certification of non-forum shopping without prior board approval. In this case, Licardo, as President of DEU, signed the verification and certification. The Court also considered the subsequent ratification by the DEU board of Licardo's act of signing the verification and certification. The Court emphasized that the recognition of the president's authority to sign verifications and certifications is based on their role and function within the juridical entity. The Court further stated that the substantive issues raised in the case and the implications they have for the livelihood of DIGITEL's workers compel a relaxation of the rules and allow DEU's petition to be tried on the merits. The Court stressed the importance of justice and the proper determination of the workers' cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.

  7. The trial court did not err in granting the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

  8. The trial court did not err in excluding the evidence of the defendant.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Compliance with the requirements under Rule 46, Section 3 of the Rules of Court is necessary for the proper filing of a petition for certiorari.

  • Failure to comply with the said requirements is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

  • Compliance with procedural requirements is essential for the proper disposition of a case.

  • The timely filing of documents can be proven through affidavits of service and certifications from competent authorities.

  • Grave abuse of discretion can occur when a court summarily dismisses a motion without considering the submitted evidence.

  • The dismissal of a petition based on procedural grounds should not cause irreparable damage to the parties involved.

  • Non-compliance with or defects in verification do not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective.

  • Verification is deemed substantially complied with when signed by one who has ample knowledge of the truth of the allegations and made in good faith or true and correct.

  • Non-compliance with or defects in certification against forum shopping are generally not curable, unless there is substantial compliance or special circumstances or compelling reasons.

  • The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all plaintiffs or petitioners, unless they share a common interest and cause of action, in which case the signature of only one substantially complies.

  • Certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader and not by counsel, unless the party-pleader is unable to sign and executes a Special Power of Attorney designating counsel to sign.

  • The grant of a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court.

  • The party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence must show that the following requisites are present: (a) the evidence was discovered after the trial; (b) the evidence could not have been discovered and produced during the trial with reasonable diligence; (c) the evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and (d) the evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted.

  • A trial court has wide latitude in the admission or exclusion of evidence, and its ruling on admissibility is generally accorded great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, unless there is a showing that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion.