Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Remedial Law; Certiorari; Petition for certiorari sluill contain the full
names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and the respondents, and
tluit the failure of the petitioners to comply with the said requirements shall
be siefficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.-Under Section 3 of
Rule 46 in relation to Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the petition
for certiorari shall contain the full names and actual addresses of all the
petitioners and the respondents, and that the failure of the petitioners to
comply with the said requirement shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal
of their petition.
643
4 Id., at p. 131.
5 Id., at p. 126.
6 Id., at p. 130.
7 Id, at p. 132.
646
8 Id,at p. 154.
9 Id, at p. 156.
10 Id.,at p. 157.
l l ld., at pp. 158-159.
l2 Id.,at pp. 142-159.
647
13Jd.,atpp.144-145.
14 Id., at p. 100.
648
Thus, the Labor Arbiter ruled that the strike staged by the
petitioner union was illegal; hence, the union officers who
knowingly participated in an illegal strike, already lost their
employment status.16
15 Id.,at p. 99.
l6 Id.,at pp.91-100.
649
650
I
PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT
DISMISSED TIIE PETITIONERS' APPEAL ON GROUNDS OF
TECHNICALITIES.
II
PUBLIC RESPONDENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION ERRED [WHEN] IT AFFIRMED TIIE FINDINGS OF
THE HONORABLE LABOR ARBITER THAT PETITIONERS
COMMITTED ILLEGAL STRIKE.24
On the first ground, the petitioners allege that they complied with
Section 3, Rule 46 and Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. They
contend that the petition filed before the CA by the petitioner
union's president was sanctioned by Article 242 of the Labor Code,
and the cases of Liberty Manufacturing Workers Union v. CFI of
Bulacan,25 Davao Free Workers Front v. CIR,26 and La Carlota
Sugar Central v. CIR.21 The petitioner union insists that it would be
illogical for the union, as an entity, to require all its members to sign
653
654
655
Section 1. Caption.-The caption sets forth the name of the court, the
title of the action, and the docket number, if assigned.
The title of the action indicates the names of the parties. They shall all be
named in the original complaint or petition� but in subsequent pleadings, it
shall be sufficient if the name of the first party on each side be stated with an
appropriate indication when there are other parties.
Their respective participation in the case shall be indicated.
In this case, the title of the petition for certiorari filed in the CA
does not contain the names of the petitioners officers of the
petitioner BMC-SUPER and of the members of the Board of
Directors; even the petition itself does not contain the full names and
addresses of the said officers and members of the Board of Directors
of the petitioner union. We quote the title of the petition and the
averments thereof having reference to the parties-petitioners:
29 CA Rollo, p. 2.
656
30 Id., at p. 4.
31 Supra at note 26.
657
32 Rollo, p. 3.
33 Jd., at p. 6.
658
As gleaned from the petition for certiorari in the CA, only the
petitioner Raymond P. Tomaroy signed the certification of non
forum shopping in his capacity as the president of the petitioner
union. The officers and members of the Board of Directors, who
were, likewise, principal petitioners, did not execute any
certification of non-forum shopping as mandated by the said Rule.
The rule is that the certification of non-forum shopping must be
signed by all the petitioners and that the signing by only one of them
is insufficient. 34 Although petitioner Tomaroy was authorized by
virtue of his position as president of the petitioner union to execute
the certification for and in its behalf, he had no authority to do so for
and in behalf of its petitioners-officers, as well as the members of
the Board of Directors thereof. The execution by the individual
petitioners of a special power of attorney subsequent to the dismissal
of the petition by the CA authorizing petitioner Tomaroy to execute
the requisite certification does not cure the fatal defect in their
petition. 35
The respondent alleges that the petition for certiorari filed before
the CA was correctly dismissed as it was not signed by
659
counsel representing him, stating in either case his address which should not be a post
office box.
The signature of counsel constitute a certificate by him that he has read the
pleading that to the best of his knowledge, infonnation and belief there is good grmmd
An tmSigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, the court may, in its
discretion, allow such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the same was
due to mere inadvertence and not intended for delay. Counsel who deliberately files an
or indecent matter therein, or rails to promptly report to the court a change of his
660
On or about 1445H of June 11, 2001, Mr. Jojo Flores and Mr. Rene Fabian
were about to deliver fabrics in Bulacan with service truck TBK-158. Upon
reaching the comer of Don Pedro St. and McArthur Highway, they gave way
to a big truck turning to Don Pedro St. and at the same time the group of Mr.
Raymond Tomaroy, the leader of BUKLURAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA
CLOTIIMAN---O -S LIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PIIlLIPPINES FOR
EMPOWERMENf AND REFORMS-BMC-SUPER were on their way to
CKC compound. Seeing the group, Mr. Fabian greeted them by giving a
quick forward motion of his head. But instead, according to Mr. Fabian, Mr.
Tomaroy with finger pointing on to Mr. Fabian accusing him as the one
responsible for the delay of their 13th month pay. Mr. Fabian just told the
group BMC-SUPER to read the Memorandum of the HRD dated June 8,
2001. Mr. Flores and Mr. Fabian returned to CKC, Don Pedro St., Marulas,
Valenzuela, to report the matter.
At about 1517H of same date, Mr. Tomaroy with 16 members of BMC
SUPER staged a rally and/or gathered in front of Clothman
661
The subsequent Reports dated June 14, 15, 16 and 18, 2001 of
the same agency further stated that members of the petitioner union,
along with other employees
particularly from the knitting
department, joined in the picket.40 It is, thus, apparent that the
concerted effort of the members of the petitioner union and its
supporters caused a temporary work stoppage. The allegation that
there can be no work stoppage because the operation in the Dyeing
and Finishing Division had been shutdown is of no consequence. It
bears stressing that the other divisions were fully operational. There
is nothing on record showing that the union members and the
supporters who formed a picket line in front of the respondent's
compound were assigned to the finishing department. As can
39 Rollo, p. 154.
40 Id., at pp. 156-159.
662