3. Did not the Court of Appeals err in interpreting and applying the 1997 Rules when
it did not consider the Notice to private respondent Guerrero through his counsel as
Notice to Guerrero himself?
[10]
The foregoing issues all refer to the question of whether, procedurally, petitioner
has complied with Section 3 of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. Additionally and in the
interest of speedy justice, this Court will also resolve the substantive issue brought
before the CA: did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in ruling in favor of
private respondent?
The Courts Ruling
While petitioner is procedurally correct, the case should nonetheless be decided on
the merits in favor of private respondent.
Procedural Issue:
Compliance with the Rules of Court
Petitioner puts at issue the proper interpretation of Section 3 of Rule 46 of the Rules
of Court.[11] Specifically, was petitioner required to attach a certified true copy of the LAs
Decision to its Petition for Certiorari challenging the NLRC judgment?
Section 3 of Rule 46 does not require that all supporting papers and documents
accompanying a petition be duplicate originals or certified true copies. Even under Rule
65 on certiorari and prohibition, petitions need to be accompanied only by duplicate
originals or certified true copies of the questioned judgment, order or resolution. Other
relevant documents and pleadings attached to it may be mere machine copies
thereof.[12] Numerous decisions issued by this Court emphasize that in appeals under
Rule 45 and in original civil actions for certiorari under Rule 65 in relation to Rules 46
and 56, what is required to be certified is the copy of the questioned judgment, final
order or resolution.[13] Since the LAs Decision was not the questioned ruling, it did not
have to be certified. What had to be certified was the NLRC Decision. And indeed it
was.
As to the alleged missing address of private respondent, the indication by petitioner
that Guerrero could be served with process care of his counsel was substantial
compliance with the Rules.
This Court has held that the sending of pleadings to a party is not required, provided
that the party is represented by counsel.[14] This rule is founded on considerations of fair
play, inasmuch as an attorney of record is engaged precisely because a party does not
feel competent to deal with the intricacies of law and procedure. [15] Both