G.R. No. 144134.

November 11, 2003]

MARIVELES SHIPYARD CORP., petitioner, vs. HON. COR! O"
APPEALS, LIS REGONDOLA, MANELI! GA!ALAN, ORESCA
AGAPI!O, NOEL AL#AD#AD, ROGELIO PIN!AN, DANILO
CRISOS!OMO, ROMLO MACALINAO, NES!OR "ERER, RIC$Y
CES!A, ROLLY ANDRADA, LARRY ROGOLA, "RANCISCO
LENOGON, AGS!O %IN!O,

AR"E #ERAMO, #ONI"ACIO
!RINIDAD, AL"REDO ASCARRAGA, ERNES!O MAGNO,
HONORARIO HOR!ECIO, NEL#ER! PINEDA, GLEN ES!IPLAR,
"RANCISCO COMPES!O, ISA#ELI!O COR!E&, MA!RAN
ROSARO, SAMSON CANAS, "E#IEN ISIP, 'ESS RIPARIP,
AL"REDO SIENES, ADOLAR AL#ER!, HONES!O CA#ANILLAS,
AMPING CAS!ILLO ()* EL+IN REVILLA, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
%ISM#ING, J.,
For review on certiorari is the Resolution,
[1]
dated December 29, 1999, of
the Court of Appeals in CA!"R" #$ %o" &&'1(, which dismissed outri)ht the
petition for certiorari of *ariveles #hip+ard Corp", due to a defective certificate
of nonforum shoppin) and nonsubmission of the re,uired documents to
accompan+ said petition" *ariveles #hip+ard Corp", had filed a special civil
action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to nullif+ the resolution
[2]
of the
%ational -abor Relations Commission .%-RC/, dated April 22, 1999, in %-RC
%CR Case %o" 000900&''09(A, which affirmed the -abor Arbiter1s
decision,
[2]
dated *a+ 22, 1993, holdin) petitioner 4ointl+ and severall+ liable
with -on)est Force 5nvesti)ation and #ecurit+ A)enc+, 5nc", for the
underpa+ment of wa)es and overtime pa+ due to the private respondents"
-i6ewise challen)ed in the instant petition is the resolution
[']
of the Court of
Appeals, dated 7ul+ 12, 2000, den+in) petitioner1s motion for reconsideration"
8he facts, as culled from records, are as follows9
#ometime on :ctober 1992, petitioner *ariveles #hip+ard Corporation
en)a)ed the services of -on)est Force 5nvesti)ation and #ecurit+ A)enc+,
5nc" .hereinafter, ;-on)est Force</ to render securit+ services at its premises"
$ursuant to their a)reement, -on)est Force deplo+ed its securit+ )uards, the
private respondents herein, at the petitioner1s ship+ard in *ariveles, =ataan"
Accordin) to petitioner, it reli)iousl+ complied with the terms of the securit+
contract with -on)est Force, promptl+ pa+in) its bills and the contract rates of
the latter" >owever, it found the services bein) rendered b+ the assi)ned
)uards unsatisfactor+ and inade,uate, causin) it to terminate its contract with
-on)est Force on April 199&"
[&]
-on)est Force, in turn, terminated the
emplo+ment of the securit+ )uards it had deplo+ed at petitioner1s ship+ard"
:n #eptember 2, 199(, private respondents filed a case for ille)al
dismissal, underpa+ment of wa)es pursuant to the $%$#:#5A$AD$A:
rates, nonpa+ment of overtime pa+, premium pa+ for holida+ and rest da+,
service incentive leave pa+, 12
th
month pa+ and attorne+1s fees, a)ainst both
-on)est Force and petitioner, before the -abor Arbiter" Doc6eted as %-RC
%CR Case %o" 000900&''09(A, the case sou)ht the )uards1
reinstatement with full bac6wa)es and without loss of seniorit+ ri)hts"
For its part, -on)est Force filed a crossclaim
[(]
a)ainst the
petitioner" -on)est Force admitted that it emplo+ed private respondents and
assi)ned them as securit+ )uards at the premises of petitioner from :ctober
1(, 1992 to April 20, 199&, renderin) a 12 hours dut+ per shift for the said
period" 5t li6ewise admitted its liabilit+ as to the nonpa+ment of the alle)ed
wa)e differential in the total amount of $2,(13,02& but passed on the liabilit+
to petitioner alle)in) that the service fee paid b+ the latter to it was wa+ below
the $%$#:#5A and $AD$A: rate, thus, ;contrar+ to the mandator+ and
prohibitive laws because the ri)ht to proper compensation and benefits
provided under the e?istin) labor laws cannot be waived nor compromised"<
8he petitioner denied an+ liabilit+ on account of the alle)ed ille)al
dismissal, stressin) that no emplo+eremplo+ee relationship e?isted between
it and the securit+ )uards" 5t further pointed out that it would be the hei)ht of
in4ustice to ma6e it liable a)ain for monetar+ claims which it had alread+ paid"
Anent the crossclaim filed b+ -on)est Force a)ainst it, petitioner pra+ed that
it be dismissed for lac6 of merit" $etitioner averred that -on)est Force had
benefited from the contract, it was now estopped from ,uestionin) said
a)reement on the )round that it had made a bad deal"
:n *a+ 22, 1993, the -abor Arbiter decided %-RC %CR Case %o" 0009
00&''09(A, to wit9
WHEREFORE, conformably with the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered
ordering the respondents as follows:
1 !E"#$R%&' respondents #ongest Force %n(estigation ) *ecurity $gency, %nc
and +ari(eles *hipyard "orporation jointly and se(erally liable to pay the money
claims of complainants representing underpayment of wages and o(ertime pay in the
total amount of ,-,.//,0-12/ based on the ,$!,$O rates of pay co(ering the period
from October 10, 1331 up to $pril -3, 1334 bro5en down as follows:
6&!ER,$7+E&8 OF W$'E*:
,ER%O! +O&8H#7
"O9ERE! ,$!,$O $"86$# 6&!ER,$7+E&8
R$8E* *$#$R7 FOR 8HE Wage
:; hrs duty< RE"E%9E! ,ER%O! !%FFERE&8%$#*
Oct 10=!ec ,4,2;4// ,4,/// , 2;4// ,3.///
14>31 :- mos<
!ec 10>31=+ar 0,01/// 4,/// 1,01/// 4,./4//
11>32 :14 mos<
$pr 1=!ec .,/3/// 4,;1/ 1,-;/// 11,4-///
11>32 :3 mos<
?an 1=$pr .,--/// 4,;1/ 1,21/// 4,43../
-3>34 :13. mos<
8O8$# 6&!ER,$7+E&8* = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ,-1,.3-./
O9ER8%+E:
Oct 10=!ec 14>31 , 4,2;4 @ - A , 4,2;4//
:- mos< -
!ec 10>31=+ar 0,01/ @ 14 A 11,0/-4/
11>32 :14 mos< -
$pr 1=!ec .,/3/ @ 3 A 11,3/4//
11>32 :3 mos< -
?an 1=$pr .,--/ @ 13. A 12,111./
-3>34 :13. mos< -
8O8$# O9ER8%+E= = = = = = = = = , 01,1-2-/
*ub=8otal of 6nderpayments and O(ertimeBBBBBB ,;.,1103/
1 #uis Regondula :the same< , ;.,1103/
- +anolito "atalan :the same< ;.,1103/
1 Oresca $gapito :the same< ;.,1103/
2 &oel $libadbad :the same< ;.,1103/
4 Rogelio ,intuan :the same< ;.,1103/
0 !anilo "risostomo :the same< ;.,1103/
. Romulo +acalinao :the same< ;.,1103/
; &estor Ferrer :the same< ;.,1103/
3 Ric5y "uesta :the same< ;.,1103/
1/ $ndrada Ric5y :the same< ;.,1103/
11 #arry Rogola :the same< ;.,1103/
1- Francisco #enogon :the same< ;.,1103/
11 $ugosto Cuinto :the same< ;.,1103/
12 $rfe Deramo :the same< ;.,1103/
14 Donifacio 8rinidad :the same< ;.,1103/
10 $lfredo $Ecarraga :the same< ;.,1103/
1. Ernesto +agno :the same< ;.,1103/
1; Honario Hortecio :the same< ;.,1103/
13 &elbert ,ineda :the same< ;.,1103/
-/ 'len Estipular :the same< ;.,1103/
-1 Francisco "ompuesto :the same< ;.,1103/
-- %sabelito "ortes :the same< ;.,1103/
-1 +aturan Rosauro :the same< ;.,1103/
-2 *amson "anas :the same< ;.,1103/
-4 Febien %sip :the same< ;.,1103/
-0 ?esus Riparip :the same< ;.,1103/
-. $lfredo *ienes :the same< ;.,1103/
-; $dolar $lbert :the same< ;.,1103/
-3 "abanillas Honesto :the same< ;.,1103/
1/ "astillo $mping :the same< ;.,1103/
11 Re(illa Elwin :the same< ;.,1103/
'R$&! 8O8$# , -,.//,0-13/
- !E"#$R%&' both respondents liable to pay complainants attorneyFs fees
eGui(alent to ten :1/H< percent of the total award reco(ered or the sum
of , -./,/0-12
1 OR!ER%&' respondent #ongest Force %n(estigation ) *ecurity $gency, %nc to
reinstate all the herein complainants to their former or eGui(alent positions without
loss of seniority rights and pri(ileges with full bac5wages which as computed as of
the date of this decision are as follows:
Dac5wages:
1/>10 I 1->14>31 A- mos
, 4,2;4// @ - mos A , 1/,3.///
1->10>31 I 1>11>32A14 mos
, 0,01/// @ 14 mos A -1,-/4//
2>1 I 1->11>32 A 3 mos
, .,/3/// @ 3 mos A 01,;1///
1>1 I 2>-3>34 A 13. mos
, .,--/// @ 13. mos A -;,0012/
8O8$# , 1-0,0;22/
[@]
1 #uis Regondula :same< , 1-0,0;22/
[3]
- +anolito "atalan :same< 1-0,0;22/
1 Oresca $gapito :same< 1-0,0;22/
2 &oel $libadbad :same< 1-0,0;22/
4 Rogelio ,intuan :same< 1-0,0;22/
0 !anilo "risostomo :same< 1-0,0;22/
. Romulo +acalinao :same< 1-0,0;22/
; &estor Ferrer :same< 1-0,0;22/
3 Ric5y "uesta :same< 1-0,0;22/
1/ $ndrada Rolly :same< 1-0,0;22/
11 #arry Rogola :same< 1-0,0;22/
1- Francisco #enogon :same< 1-0,0;22/
11 $ugosto Cuinto :same< 1-0,0;22/
12 $rfe Deramo :same< 1-0,0;22/
14 Donifacio 8rinidad :same< 1-0,0;22/
10 $lfredo $Ecarraga :same< 1-0,0;22/
1. Ernesto +agno :same< 1-0,0;22/
1; Honario Hortecio :same< 1-0,0;22/
13 &elbert ,ineda :same< 1-0,0;22/
-/ 'len Estipular :same< 1-0,0;22/
-1 Francisco "ompuesto :same< 1-0,0;22/
-- %sabelito "ortes :same< 1-0,0;22/
-1 +aturan Rosauro :same< 1-0,0;22/
-2 *amson "anas :same< 1-0,0;22/
-4 Febien %sip :same< 1-0,0;22/
-0 ?esus Riparip :same< 1-0,0;22/
-. $lfredo *ienes :same< 1-0,0;22/
-; $dolar $lbert :same< 1-0,0;22/
-3 "abanillas Honesto :same< 1-0,0;22/
1/ "astillo $mping :same< 1-0,0;22/
11 Re(illa Elwin :same< 1-0,0;22/
'R$&! 8O8$# ,1,3-.,-102/
[9]
2 OR!ER%&' said #ongest Force %n(estigation ) *ecurity $gency, %nc to pay
attorneyFs fees eGui(alent to ten :1/H< percent of the total award reco(ered
representing bac5wages in the amount of ,13-,.-102
[10]
4 !%*+%**%&' all other claims for lac5 of legal basis
*O OR!ERE!
[11]
$etitioner appealed the fore)oin) to the %-RC in %-RC %CR Case %o"
000900&''09(A" 8he labor tribunal, however, affirmed in toto the decision
of the -abor Arbiter" $etitioner moved for reconsideration, but this was denied
b+ the %-RC"
8he petitioner then filed a special civil action for certiorari assailin) the
%-RC 4ud)ment for havin) been rendered with )rave abuse of discretion with
the Court of Appeals, doc6eted as CA!"R" #$ %o" &&'1(" 8he Court of
Appeals, however, denied due course to the petition and dismissed it outri)ht
for the followin) reasons9
1" 8he verification and certification on nonforum shoppin) is si)ned not b+ dul+
authoriAed officer of petitioner corporation, but b+ counsel .#ection 1, Rule (&, 199@
Rules of Civil $rocedure/"
2" 8he petition is unaccompanied b+ copies of relevant and pertinent documents,
particularl+ the motion for reconsideration filed before the %-RC .#ection 1, Rule (&,
199@ Rules of Civil $rocedure/"
[12]
8he petitioner then moved for reconsideration of the order of dismissal"
8he appellate court denied the motion, pointin) out that under prevailin) case
law subse,uent compliance with formal re,uirements for filin) a petition as
prescribed b+ the Rules, does not ipso facto warrant a reconsideration" 5n an+
event, it found no )rave abuse of discretion on the part of the %-RC to )rant
the writ of certiorari"
>ence, this present petition before us" $etitioner submits that 8>B
C:CR8 :F A$$BA-# !RADB-E BRRBD9
1" F"5% D5#*5##5%! 8>B $B8585:% A%D DB%E5%! 8>B *:85:% F:R
RBC:%#5DBRA85:% DB#$58B 8>B FAC8 8>A8 $B8585:%BR #C=#8A%85A--E
C:*$-5BD G58> 8>B RBHC5RB*B%8# :F #BC85:% 1, RC-B (&, 199@ RC-B#
:F C5D5- $R:CBDCRB"
2" F"5% RC-5%! 8>A8 $B8585:%BR GA# %:8 DB%5BD DCB $R:CB## :F -AG"
2" F"5% AFF5R*5%! 8>B DBC5#5:% :F 8>B %A85:%A- -A=:R RB-A85:%#
C:**5##5:% 8>A8 ;-:%!B#8 F:RCB< A%D $B8585:%BR ARB 7:5%8-E A%D
#BDBRA--E -5A=-B F:R $AE*B%8 :F GA!B# A%D :DBR85*B $AE DB#$58B
8>B C-BAR #>:G5%! 8>A8 $B8585:%BR >ADB A-RBADE $A5D 8>B
#BCCR58E #BRD5CB# 8>A8 GA# RB%DBRBD =E $R5DA8B RB#$:%DB%8#"
'" FG>B% 58 FA5-BD 8: RC-B 8>A8 :%-E ;-:%!B#8 F:RCB< #>:C-D =B
#:-B-E A%D C-85*A8B-E -5A=-B 5% 8>B 5%#8A%8 CA#B"
[12]
Ge find the issues for our resolution to be9 .1/ Gas it error for the Court of
Appeals to sustain its order of dismissal of petitioner1s special civil action
for certiorari, notwithstandin) subse,uent compliance with the re,uirements
under the Rules of Court b+ the petitionerI .2/ Did the appellate court err in
not holdin) that petitioner was denied due process of law b+ the %-RCI and
.2/ Did the appellate court )rievousl+ err in findin) petitioner 4ointl+ and
severall+ liable with -on)est Force for the pa+ment of wa)e differentials and
overtime pa+ owin) to the private respondentsI
:n the first issue, the Court of Appeals in dismissin) CA!"R" #$ %o"
&&'1( observed that9 .1/ the verification and certification of nonforum
shoppin) was not si)ned b+ an+ dul+ authoriAed officer of petitioner but
merel+ b+ petitioner1s counselJ and .2/ the petition was not accompanied b+ a
cop+ of motion for reconsideration filed before the %-RC, thus violatin)
#ection 1,
[1']
Rule (& of the Rules of Court" >ence, a dismissal was proper
under #ection 2,
[1&]
Rule '( of the Rules"
5n assailin) the appellate court1s rulin), the petitioner appeals to our sense
of compassion and 6ind consideration" 5t submits that the certification si)ned
b+ its counsel and attached to its petition filed with the Court of Appeals is
substantial compliance with the re,uirement" *oreover, petitioner calls our
attention to the fact that when it filed its motion for reconsideration before the
Court of Appeals, a 4oint verification and certification of nonforum shoppin)
dul+ si)ned b+ its $ersonnel *ana)er
[1(]
and a cop+ of the *otion for
Reconsideration
[1@]
filed before the %-RC were attached therein" 8hus,
petitioner pra+s that we ta6e a liberal stance to promote the ends of 4ustice"
$etitioner1s plea for liberalit+, however, cannot be )ranted b+ the Court for
reasons herein elucidated"
5t is settled that the re,uirement in the Rules that the certification of non
forum shoppin) should be e?ecuted and si)ned b+ the plaintiff or the principal
means that counsel cannot si)n said certification unless clothed with special
authorit+ to do so"
[13]
8he reason for this is that the plaintiff or principal 6nows
better than an+one else whether a petition has previousl+ been filed involvin)
the same case or substantiall+ the same issues" >ence, a certification si)ned
b+ counsel alone is defective and constitutes a valid cause for dismissal of the
petition"
[19]
5n the case of natural persons, the Rule re,uires the parties
themselves to si)n the certificate of nonforum shoppin)" >owever, in the
case of the corporations, the ph+sical act of si)nin) ma+ be performed, on
behalf of the corporate entit+, onl+ b+ specificall+ authoriAed individuals for the
simple reason that corporations, as artificial persons, cannot personall+ do the
tas6 themselves"
[20]
5n this case, not onl+ was the ori)inall+ appended
certification si)ned b+ counsel, but in its motion for reconsideration, still
petitioner utterl+ failed to show that *s" Rosanna 5)nacio, its $ersonnel
*ana)er who si)ned the verification and certification of nonforum shoppin)
attached thereto, was dul+ authoriAed for this purpose" 5t cannot be )ainsaid
that obedience to the re,uirements of procedural rule is needed if we are to
e?pect fair results therefrom" Ctter disre)ard of the rules cannot 4ustl+ be
rationaliAed b+ har6in) on the polic+ of liberal construction"
[21]
8hus, on this point, no error could be validl+ attributed to respondent Court
of Appeals" 5t did not err in dismissin) the petition for noncompliance with the
re,uirements )overnin) the certification of nonforum shoppin)"
Anent the second issue, petitioner avers that there was denial of due
process of law when the -abor Arbiter failed to have the case tried on the
merits" $etitioner adds that the Arbiter did not observe the mandator+
lan)ua)e of the then #ec" &.b/ Rule D .now #ection 11, per amendment in
Resolution %o" 0102, #eries of 2002/ of the %-RC %ew Rules of $rocedure
which provided that9
%f the #abor $rbiter finds no necessity of further hearing after the parties ha(e
submitted their position papers and supporting documents, he shall issue an Order to
that effect and shall inform the parties, stating the reasons therefor B
[22]
$etitioner1s contention, in our view, lac6s sufficient basis" Gell settled is
the rule that the essence of due process is simpl+ an opportunit+ to be heard,
or, as applied to administrative proceedin)s, an opportunit+ to e?plain one1s
side or an opportunit+ to see6 a reconsideration of the action or rulin)
complained of"
[22]
%ot all cases re,uire a trialt+pe hearin)" 8he re,uirement of
due process in labor cases before a -abor Arbiter is satisfied when the parties
are )iven the opportunit+ to submit their position papers to which the+ are
supposed to attach all the supportin) documents or documentar+ evidence
that would prove their respective claims, in the event the -abor Arbiter
determines that no formal hearin) would be conducted or that such hearin)
was not necessar+"
[2']
5n an+ event, as found b+ the %-RC, petitioner was
)iven ample opportunit+ to present its side in several hearin)s conducted
before the -abor Arbiter and in the position papers and other supportin)
documents that it had submitted" Ge find that such opportunit+ more than
satisfies the re,uirement of due process in labor cases"
:n the third issue, petitioner ar)ues that it should not be held 4ointl+ and
severall+ liable with -on)est Force for underpa+ment of wa)es and overtime
pa+ because it had been reli)iousl+ and promptl+ pa+in) the bills for the
securit+ services sent b+ -on)est Force and that these are in accordance with
the statutor+ minimum wa)e" Also, petitioner contends that it should not be
held liable for overtime pa+ as private respondents failed to present proof that
overtime wor6 was actuall+ performed" -astl+, petitioner claims that the Court
of Appeals failed to render a decision that finall+ disposed of the case
because it did not specificall+ rule on the immediate recourse of private
respondents, that is, the matter of reimbursement between petitioner and
-on)est Force in accordance with Eagle Security Agency Inc. v. NLRC,
[2&]
and Philippine Fisheries Developent Authority v. NLRC"
[2(]
$etitioner1s liabilit+ is 4oint and several with that of -on)est Force, pursuant
to Articles 10(, 10@ and 109 of the -abor Code which provide as follows9
ART. 106. CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR I Whene(er an employer enters
into a contract with another person for the performance of the formerFs wor5, the
employees of the contractor and of the latterFs subcontractor, if any, shall be paid in
accordance with the pro(isions of this "ode
%n the e(ent that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wages of his
employees in accordance with this "ode, the employer shall be jointly and se(erally
liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the e@tent of the wor5
performed under the contract, in the same manner and e@tent that he is liable to
employees directly employed by him
@ @ @
ART. 107. INDIRECT EMPLOYER I 8he pro(isions of the immediately preceding
$rticle shall li5ewise apply to any person, partnership, association or corporation
which, not being an employer, contracts with an independent contractor for the
performance of any wor5, tas5, job or project
ART. 109. SOLIDARY LIABILITY I 8he pro(isions of e@isting laws to the contrary
notwithstanding, e(ery employer or indirect employer shall be held responsible with
his contractor or subcontractor for any (iolation of any pro(ision of this "ode For
purposes of determining the e@tent of their ci(il liability under this "hapter, they shall
be considered as direct employers
5n this case, when petitioner contracted for securit+ services with -on)est
Force as the securit+ a)enc+ that hired private respondents to wor6 as )uards
for the ship+ard corporation, petitioner became an indirect emplo+er of private
respondents pursuant to Article 10@ abovecited" Followin) Article 10(, when
the a)enc+ as contractor failed to pa+ the )uards, the corporation as principal
becomes 4ointl+ and severall+ liable for the )uards1 wa)es" 8his is mandated
b+ the -abor Code to ensure compliance with its provisions, includin)
pa+ment of statutor+ minimum wa)e" 8he securit+ a)enc+ is held liable b+
virtue of its status as direct emplo+er, while the corporation is deemed the
indirect emplo+er of the )uards for the purpose of pa+in) their wa)es in the
event of failure of the a)enc+ to pa+ them" 8his statutor+ scheme )ives the
wor6ers the ample protection consonant with labor and social 4ustice
provisions of the 193@ Constitution"
[2@]
$etitioner cannot evade its liabilit+ b+ claimin) that it had reli)iousl+ paid
the compensation of )uards as stipulated under the contract with the securit+
a)enc+" -abor standards are enacted b+ the le)islature to alleviate the pli)ht
of wor6ers whose wa)es barel+ meet the spiralin) costs of their basic
needs" -abor laws are considered written in ever+ contract" #tipulations in
violation thereof are considered null" #imilarl+, le)islated wa)e increases are
deemed amendments to the contract" 8hus, emplo+ers cannot hide behind
their contracts in order to evade their .or their contractors1 or subcontractors1/
liabilit+ for noncompliance with the statutor+ minimum wa)e"
[23]
>owever, we must emphasiAe that the solidar+ liabilit+ of petitioner with
that of -on)est Force does not preclude the application of the Civil Code
provision on the ri)ht of reimbursement from his codebtor b+ the one who
paid"
[29]
As held in Del Rosario ! Sons Logging Enterprises" Inc. v. NLRC"
[20]
the
4oint and several liabilit+ imposed on petitioner is without pre4udice to a claim
for reimbursement b+ petitioner a)ainst the securit+ a)enc+ for such amounts
as petitioner ma+ have to pa+ to complainants, the private respondents
herein" 8he securit+ a)enc+ ma+ not see6 e?culpation b+ claimin) that the
principal1s pa+ments to it were inade,uate for the )uards1 lawful
compensation" As an emplo+er, the securit+ a)enc+ is char)ed with
6nowled)e of labor lawsJ and the ade,uac+ of the compensation that it
demands for contractual services is its principal concern and not an+ other1s"
[21]
:n the issue of the propriet+ of the award of overtime pa+ despite the
alle)ed lac6 of proof thereof, suffice it to state that such involves a
determination and evaluation of facts which cannot be done in a petition for
review" Gell established is the rule that in an appeal via certiorari, onl+
,uestions of law ma+ be reviewed"
[22]
:ne final point" Cpon review of the award of bac6wa)es and attorne+1s
fees, we discovered certain errors that happened in the addition of the amount
of individual bac6wa)es that resulted in the erroneous total amount of
bac6wa)es and attorne+1s fees" 8hese errors ou)ht to be properl+ rectified
now" 8hus, the correct sum of individual bac6wa)es should
be P 12-,-4..40 instead of$12(,(3'"'0, while the correct sum of total
bac6wa)es awarded and attorne+1s fees should
be P 3,/2-,100.40 and P 3/2,-10.04, instead of $2,92@,21("'0
and $292,@21"(', respectivel+"
+HERE"ORE, the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA!"R" #$ %o"
&&'1( is AFF5R*BD with *:D5F5CA85:%" $etitioner and -on)est Force are
held liable 4ointl+ and severall+ for underpa+ment of wa)es and overtime pa+
of the securit+ )uards, without pre4udice to petitioner1s ri)ht of reimbursement
from -on)est Force 5nvesti)ation and #ecurit+ A)enc+, 5nc" 8he amounts
pa+able to complainin) securit+ )uards, herein private respondents, b+ wa+ of
total bac6wa)es and attorne+1s fees are hereb+ set at $2,92(,100"'0
and $292,(10"0', respectivel+" Costs a)ainst petitioner"
SO ORDERED.
==
Mariveles Shipyard vs. CA
[GR No. 144134, November 11, 2003]
a!"s#
,etitioner +ari(eles *hipyard "orporation engaged the ser(ices of #ongest Force %n(estigation and *ecurity $gency, %nc :hereinafter,
J#ongest ForceJ< to render security ser(ices at its premises ,ursuant to their agreement, #ongest Force deployed its security guards, the pri(ate
respondents herein, at the petitionerKs shipyard in +ari(eles, Dataan
$ccording to petitioner, it religiously complied with the terms of the security contract with #ongest Force, promptly paying its bills and the
contract rates of the latter Howe(er, it found the ser(ices being rendered by the assigned guards unsatisfactory and inadeGuate, causing it to
terminate its contract with #ongest Force on $pril 1334 #ongest Force, in turn, terminated the employment of the security guards it had
deployed at petitionerKs shipyard
On *eptember -, 1330, pri(ate respondents filed a case for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages pursuant to the ,&,*O*%$=
,$!,$O rates, non=payment of o(ertime pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day, ser(ice incenti(e lea(e pay, 11th month pay and attorneyKs
fees, against both #ongest Force and petitioner, before the #abor $rbiter !oc5eted as &#R" &"R "ase &o //=/3=//422/=30=$, the case sought
the guardsK reinstatement with full bac5wages and without loss of seniority rights
,etitioner "orporation sought before the "ourt of $ppeals the nullification of the decision of the &#R" which affirmed the #abor
$rbiterKs decision finding it jointly and se(erally liable with the #ongest Force %n(estigation and *ecurity $gency, %nc for the underpayment of
wages and o(ertime pay due to the latterKs security guards, pri(ate respondents herein, deployed at the petitionerKs shipyard in +ari(eles, Dataan
,etitioner denied any liability, arguing that it had religiously and promptly paid the compensation of the security guards as stipulated under the
contract with the security agency 8he "ourt of $ppeals dismissed outright petitionerKs petition for certiorari and its subseGuent motion for
reconsideration, due to a defecti(e certificate of non=forum shopping and non=submission of the reGuired documents to accompany said petition
8he appellate court found that the (erification and certification on non=forum shopping was signed not by the duly authoriEed officer
of petitioner, but by its counsel
$ss%es#
:1< Was it error for the "ourt of $ppeals to sustain its order of dismissal of petitionerKs special ci(il action for certiorari, notwithstanding
subseGuent compliance with the reGuirements under the Rules of "ourt by the petitionerL
:-< !id the appellate court err in not holding that petitioner was denied due process of law by the &#R"L
:1< !id the appellate court grie(ously err in finding petitioner jointly and se(erally liable with #ongest Force for the payment of wage
differentials and o(ertime pay owing to the pri(ate respondentsL
R%li&'#
1 %t is settled that the reGuirement in the Rules that the certification of non=forum shopping should be e@ecuted and signed by the plaintiff or the
principal means that counsel cannot sign said certification unless clothed with special authority to do so 8he reason for this is that the plaintiff or
principal 5nows better than anyone else whether a petition has pre(iously been filed in(ol(ing the same case or substantially the same issues
Hence, a certification signed by counsel alone is defecti(e and constitutes a (alid cause for dismissal of the petition %n the case of natural
persons, the Rule reGuires the parties themsel(es to sign the certificate of non=forum shopping Howe(er, in the case of the corporations, the
physical act of signing may be performed, on behalf of the corporate entity, only by specifically authoriEed indi(iduals for the simple reason that
corporations, as artificial persons, cannot personally do the tas5 themsel(es %n this case, not only was the originally appended certification
signed by counsel, but in its motion for reconsideration, still petitioner utterly failed to show that +s Rosanna %gnacio, its ,ersonnel +anager
who signed the (erification and certification of non=forum shopping attached thereto, was duly authoriEed for this purpose %t cannot be gainsaid
that obedience to the reGuirements of procedural rule is needed if we are to e@pect fair results therefrom 6tter disregard of the rules cannot justly
be rationaliEed by har5ing on the policy of liberal construction
8hus, on this point, no error could be (alidly attributed to respondent "ourt of $ppeals %t did not err in dismissing the petition for non=
compliance with the reGuirements go(erning the certification of non=forum shopping
- Well settled is the rule that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or, as applied to administrati(e proceedings, an
opportunity to e@plain oneKs side or an opportunity to see5 a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of &ot all cases reGuire a trial=
type hearing 8he reGuirement of due process in labor cases before a #abor $rbiter is satisfied when the parties are gi(en the opportunity to
submit their position papers to which they are supposed to attach all the supporting documents or documentary e(idence that would pro(e their
respecti(e claims, in the e(ent the #abor $rbiter determines that no formal hearing would be conducted or that such hearing was not necessary
%n any e(ent, as found by the &#R", petitioner was gi(en ample opportunity to present its side in se(eral hearings conducted before the #abor
$rbiter and in the position papers and other supporting documents that it had submitted We find that such opportunity more than satisfies the
reGuirement of due process in labor cases
1 ,etitionerKs liability is joint and se(eral with that of #ongest Force, pursuant to $rticles 1/0, 1/. and 1/3 of the #abor "ode which pro(ide as
follows:
$R8 1/0CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR M Whene(er an employer enters into a contract with another
person for the performance of the formerKs wor5, the employees of the contractor and of the latterKs subcontractor, if any,
shall be paid in accordance with the pro(isions of this "ode
%n the e(ent that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wages of his employees in accordance with this "ode,
the employer shall be jointly and se(erally liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the e@tent of
the wor5 performed under the contract, in the same manner and e@tent that he is liable to employees directly employed
by him
@@@ @@@ @@@
$R8 1/.INDIRECT EMPLOYER M 8he pro(isions of the immediately preceding $rticle shall li5ewise apply to any
person, partnership, association or corporation which, not being an employer, contracts with an independent contractor
for the performance of any wor5, tas5, job or project
$R8 1/3SOLIDARY LIABILITY M 8he pro(isions of e@isting laws to the contrary notwithstanding, e(ery employer
or indirect employer shall be held responsible with his contractor or subcontractor for any (iolation of any pro(ision of
this "ode For purposes of determining the e@tent of their ci(il liability under this "hapter, they shall be considered as
direct employers
,etitioner cannot e(ade its liability by claiming that it had religiously paid the compensation of guards as stipulated under the contract with the
security agency #abor standards are enacted by the legislature to alle(iate the plight of wor5ers whose wages barely meet the spiraling costs of
their basic needs #abor laws are considered written in e(ery contract *tipulations in (iolation thereof are considered null