DR. PEDRITO F. REYES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS,
PHIL. MALAY POULTRY BREEDERS, INC. and LEONG HUP POULTRY FARM SDN, BHD., Mr. Francis
T.N. Lau, President and Chairman of the Board and Mr. Chor Tee Lim, Director,
respondentsG.R. No. 154448 | August 15, 2003
FACTS:
On August
24, 1989, respondent Leong Hup Poultry Farms SDN. BHD of Malaysia, thru its Managing
Director Francis T. Lau, appointed petitioner Pedrito F. Reyes as
Technical/Sales Manager. Sometime in 1992, the company formed Philippine Malay
Poultry Breeders, Inc., in the Philippines. Petitioner was appointed General Manager
thereof.
In
1996-1997, respondents suffered losses which caused them to reduce production
and retrench employees in Philmalay. On June 30, 1997, petitioner gave verbal
notice to respondent Francis T. Lau that he will serve as General Manager of
Philmalay until December 31, 1997 only. In a letter dated January 12, 1998,
petitioner confirmed his verbal notice of resignation and requested that he be
given the same benefits granted to retrenched and resigned employees of the
company, consisting of separation pay equivalent to 1 month salary for every
year of service and the monetary equivalent of his sick leave and vacation leave.
Respondent
Philmalay retrenched petitioner effective January 20, 1998 and promised to pay
him separation benefits pursuant to the provisions of the Labor Code. He was,
however, offered a separation pay equivalent to four months only. The offer was
not accepted by petitioner and efforts to settle the impasse proved futile.
Petitioner
filed with the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission a
complaint for underpayment of wages and nonpayment of separation pay, sick
leave, vacation leave and other benefits against respondents.
The Labor
Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of petitioner.
On appeal
by respondents to the NLRC, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter was modified.
Undaunted,
petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was
dismissed for failure to attach to the petition the following: “(1)
complainant’s (petitioner) Position Paper filed before the Labor Arbiter; (2)
Decision dated 22 December 1992 penned by Labor Arbiter Ariel Cadiente Santos;
and (3) Memorandum of Appeal filed bythe petitioner.”
Petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching thereto a copy of the Labor Arbiter’s
decision and the pleadings he failed to attach to the petition. The Court of
Appeals, however, denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Hence, the
instant petition
ISSUE:
Whether or
not the CA committed GADALEJ in dismissing the petition based on technicalities
RULING:
The
allowance of the petition on the ground of substantial compliance with the
Rules is not a novel occurrence in our jurisdiction. As consistently held by
the Court, rules of procedure should not be applied in a very technical sense,
for they are adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice.
In Jaro v.
Court of Appeals, we applied the rule on substantial compliance because the
petitioner amended his defective petition and attached thereto the relevant annexes
certified according to the rules.
The same
leniency should be applied to the instant case considering that petitioner
subsequently submitted with his motion for reconsideration the certified true
copy of the Labor Arbiter’s decision, the complainant’s position paper and the
respondent’s memorandum of appeal. Clearly, petitioner had demonstrated
willingness to comply with the requirements set by the rules. If we are to
apply the rules of procedure in a very rigid and technical sense, as the Court
of Appeals did in this case, the ends of justice would be defeated.
Labor laws mandate
the speedy disposition of cases, with the least attention to technicalities but
without sacrificing the fundamental requisites of due process. Remanding the case
to the Court of Appeals will only frustrate speedy justice and, in any event,
would be a futile exercise, as in all probability the case would end up with
this Court.
Comments
Post a Comment