FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. NO. 148505, February 20, 2007 ]LEOPOLDO v. MENDOZA +
LEOPOLDO V. MENDOZA, PETITIONER, V.S THE COURT OF APPEALS AND MERCHANDISING INSPECTION COMPANY, LTD., RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
LEOPOLDO v. MENDOZA +
LEOPOLDO V. MENDOZA, PETITIONER, V.S THE COURT OF APPEALS AND MERCHANDISING INSPECTION COMPANY, LTD., RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
For our resolution is the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Resolutions dated March 16 and June 4, 2001[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 4266
(UDK).
Leopoldo Mendoza, petitioner, alleged in his petition that in 1988, he was employed as a checker by the Overseas Merchandising Inspection Company Ltd., private respondent. From March 1 to December 18, 1993, however, respondent company did not give him any work assignment due to his union activities. His only job was to distribute the company's Christmas calendars. Thus, he filed with the Arbitration Branch, National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), National Capital Region, a complaint for constructive dismissal and non-payment of backwages, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 07-05430-94.
For its part, respondent company denied the allegations in the complaint, claiming that in January 1994, petitioner showed disinterest in his work and stopped reporting to the office. Nonetheless, he received his salary and bonus up to January 13, 1994, negating his claim that he was illegally dismissed from employment.
On August 11, 1997, Labor Arbiter Facundo Leda promulgated a Decision dismissing the charge for unfair labor practice but finding that petitioner was illegally dismissed, thus:
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the NLRC in its Order dated October 30, 2000.
Thereupon, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 4266 (UDK). On March 16, 2001, the appellate court promulgated its Resolution dismissing the petition for petitioner's failure to pay the docket and other legal fees.
In his motion for reconsideration, petitioner alleged that when he filed the petition through registered mail, he enclosed P1,030.00 in cash as docket fee. He thus prayed that he "be allowed to pay once more the docketing fee so required."
On June 4, 2001, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution denying petitioner's motion.
Hence, this petition.
Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed his petition for his failure to pay the required docket fees. He prays for a liberal interpretation of the Rules of Court.
The petition lacks merit.
Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
While the Rules of Court must be faithfully followed, however, they may be relaxed for persuasive and weighty reasons to relieve a litigant from an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedures.[4] In Yambao v. Court of Appeals,[5] we ruled that the appellate court may extend the time for the payment of docket fees if appellant is able to show that there is a justifiable reason for the failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees within the prescribed period, like fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence, or a similar supervening casualty without fault on the part of the appellant. In Villamor v. Court of Appeals,[6] we reinstated the appeal despite appellant's failure to pay the docket fees after almost one year from the filing of the notice of appeal. We found that there was no deliberate refusal on his part to pay the required docket fee within the reglementary period.
In the instant case, however, petitioner has not shown any reason which justifies relaxation of the Rules. His insistence that he enclosed in the mailing envelope the amount of P1,030.00 as docket fee does not convince us. If it were true, why did he pray in his motion for reconsideration that he be allowed to pay once more the docketing fee?
It bears stressing that procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have prejudiced a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed.[7] Not one of these exceptions is present here.
Moreover, petitioner resorted to the wrong remedy. What he should have filed with this Court is a petition for review on certiorari pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the same Rules.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 4266 (UDK) are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J. (Chairperson), Corona, and Garcia, JJ., concur.
Azcuna, J., on official leave.
[1] Rollo, p. 121. Penned by Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (now a member of this Court), and concurred in by Associate Justice Renato Dacudao and Associate Justice Perlita Tria-Tirona (retired).
[2] Rollo, p. 66.
[3 Bibiana Farms and Mills Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission (5th Division) and Rogelio Majasol, G.R. No. 154284, October 27, 2006.
[4] Navarro v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. 138031, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 439.
[5] G.R. No. 140894, November 27, 2000, 346 SCRA 141.
[6] G.R. No. 136858, July 21, 2004, 434 SCRA 565.
[7] Meatmasters International Corporation v. Lelis Integrated Development Corporation, G.R. No. 163022, February 28, 2005, 452 SCRA 626, citing Lazaro v. Court of Appeals, 330 SCRA 208 (2000).
Leopoldo Mendoza, petitioner, alleged in his petition that in 1988, he was employed as a checker by the Overseas Merchandising Inspection Company Ltd., private respondent. From March 1 to December 18, 1993, however, respondent company did not give him any work assignment due to his union activities. His only job was to distribute the company's Christmas calendars. Thus, he filed with the Arbitration Branch, National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), National Capital Region, a complaint for constructive dismissal and non-payment of backwages, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 07-05430-94.
For its part, respondent company denied the allegations in the complaint, claiming that in January 1994, petitioner showed disinterest in his work and stopped reporting to the office. Nonetheless, he received his salary and bonus up to January 13, 1994, negating his claim that he was illegally dismissed from employment.
On August 11, 1997, Labor Arbiter Facundo Leda promulgated a Decision dismissing the charge for unfair labor practice but finding that petitioner was illegally dismissed, thus:
WHEREFORE, decision is hereby rendered, as follows:Respondent company then interposed an appeal to the NLRC, docketed as NLRC NCR CA No. 013786-97. In its Decision dated January 21, 1998, the NLRC set aside the judgment of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed petitioner's complaint.
SO ORDERED.[2]
- Dismissing the charge of ULP for having been forever barred by prescription;
- Declaring that complainant was illegally dismissed;
- Ordering the respondents Overseas Merchandising Inspection Co., Ltd. and Akimasa Kuboi to pay complainant Leopoldo Mendoza, Jr., the total amount of One Hundred Eighty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Eight Pesos and Four Centavos (P183,898.04) representing his separation pay, backwages, service incentive leave pay and attorney's fees.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the NLRC in its Order dated October 30, 2000.
Thereupon, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 4266 (UDK). On March 16, 2001, the appellate court promulgated its Resolution dismissing the petition for petitioner's failure to pay the docket and other legal fees.
In his motion for reconsideration, petitioner alleged that when he filed the petition through registered mail, he enclosed P1,030.00 in cash as docket fee. He thus prayed that he "be allowed to pay once more the docketing fee so required."
On June 4, 2001, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution denying petitioner's motion.
Hence, this petition.
Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed his petition for his failure to pay the required docket fees. He prays for a liberal interpretation of the Rules of Court.
The petition lacks merit.
Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
Sec. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. The petition shall contain the full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of the matters involved, the factual background of the case, and the grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for.Thus, a court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case unless the docket fees are paid.[3] It is clear that non-compliance with any of the requirements stated above warrants the dismissal of a petition.
x x x
The petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs at the time of the filing of the petition.
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. (Underscoring supplied)
While the Rules of Court must be faithfully followed, however, they may be relaxed for persuasive and weighty reasons to relieve a litigant from an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedures.[4] In Yambao v. Court of Appeals,[5] we ruled that the appellate court may extend the time for the payment of docket fees if appellant is able to show that there is a justifiable reason for the failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees within the prescribed period, like fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence, or a similar supervening casualty without fault on the part of the appellant. In Villamor v. Court of Appeals,[6] we reinstated the appeal despite appellant's failure to pay the docket fees after almost one year from the filing of the notice of appeal. We found that there was no deliberate refusal on his part to pay the required docket fee within the reglementary period.
In the instant case, however, petitioner has not shown any reason which justifies relaxation of the Rules. His insistence that he enclosed in the mailing envelope the amount of P1,030.00 as docket fee does not convince us. If it were true, why did he pray in his motion for reconsideration that he be allowed to pay once more the docketing fee?
It bears stressing that procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have prejudiced a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed.[7] Not one of these exceptions is present here.
Moreover, petitioner resorted to the wrong remedy. What he should have filed with this Court is a petition for review on certiorari pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the same Rules.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 4266 (UDK) are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J. (Chairperson), Corona, and Garcia, JJ., concur.
Azcuna, J., on official leave.
[1] Rollo, p. 121. Penned by Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (now a member of this Court), and concurred in by Associate Justice Renato Dacudao and Associate Justice Perlita Tria-Tirona (retired).
[2] Rollo, p. 66.
[3 Bibiana Farms and Mills Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission (5th Division) and Rogelio Majasol, G.R. No. 154284, October 27, 2006.
[4] Navarro v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. 138031, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 439.
[5] G.R. No. 140894, November 27, 2000, 346 SCRA 141.
[6] G.R. No. 136858, July 21, 2004, 434 SCRA 565.
[7] Meatmasters International Corporation v. Lelis Integrated Development Corporation, G.R. No. 163022, February 28, 2005, 452 SCRA 626, citing Lazaro v. Court of Appeals, 330 SCRA 208 (2000).