4/20/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
jurisdiction over private respondent's complaint by virtue of Republic Act 8042, the
Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. After the submission of position of
papers, the labor arbiter assigned to the case rendered a decision[7] dated April 27,
1998 in favor of private respondent. In this decision, the labor arbiter held petitioners
MCEI and Hanil jointly and severally liable to private respondent in the amount of
US$2,500.00 and 10% of the cash award as and by way of attorney's fees.
The decision of the labor arbiter was appealed to the NLRC by petitioners on June 15,
1998. However, this appeal was dismissed by the NLRC in a Resolution[8] dated
February 26, 1999. The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners was likewise
denied by the NLRC in its Order[9] dated September 28, 1999.
On December 17, 1999, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of
Appeals questioning the above Resolution and Order of the NLRC. However, the Court
of Appeals dismissed the petition filed by petitioners in a Resolution[10] dated
December 27, 1999. The full text of the resolution is as follows:
"The instant Petition for Certiorari is fatally defective for two (2) reasons: (1)
there is no certification against forum shopping by co-petitioner Hamil
Development Co., Ltd.; and (2) there is no written explanation why the
service of the pleading was not done personally (Section 3, Rule 46 and
Section 11, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Certiorari, having failed to comply with
the requirement of the Rules, as aforesaid, is DISMISSED outright.
SO ORDERED."
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration from this December 27, 1999 Resolution
but this was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution[11] dated March 3, 2000.
Hence, the recourse by petitioners to this Court where they raise, among other issues,
the propriety of the dismissal of their petition for certiorari by the Court of Appeals on
the grounds of non-compliance with the requirements of non-forum shopping and lack
of explanation of service by registered mail.
With respect to the first ground for the dismissal of the petition by the appellate court,
the requirement regarding the need for a certification of non-forum shopping in original
cases filed before the Court of Appeals and the corresponding sanction for noncompliance thereto is found in Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Said section, in pertinent part, provides as follows:
"Rule 46, Sec. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance
with requirements. -
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52244
2/7