3/3/2017 MarivelesShipyardCorpvsCA:144134:November11,2003:J.

Quisumbing:SecondDivision

SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.144134.November11,2003]

MARIVELES SHIPYARD CORP., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, LUIS

REGONDOLA, MANUELIT GATALAN, ORESCA AGAPITO, NOEL ALBADBAD,
ROGELIO PINTUAN, DANILO CRISOSTOMO, ROMULO MACALINAO, NESTOR
FERER,RICKYCUESTA,ROLLYANDRADA,LARRYROGOLA,FRANCISCO
LENOGON, AUGUSTO QUINTO, ARFE BERAMO, BONIFACIO TRINIDAD,
ALFREDO ASCARRAGA, ERNESTO MAGNO, HONORARIO HORTECIO,
NELBERT PINEDA, GLEN ESTIPULAR, FRANCISCO COMPUESTO,
ISABELITOCORTEZ,MATURANROSAURO,SAMSONCANAS,FEBIENISIP,
JESUS RIPARIP, ALFREDO SIENES, ADOLAR ALBERT, HONESTO
CABANILLAS,AMPINGCASTILLOandELWINREVILLA,respondents.

DECISION
QUISUMBING,J.:

[1]
ForreviewoncertiorariistheResolution, datedDecember29,1999,oftheCourtofAppealsin
CAG.R. SP No. 55416, which dismissed outright the petition for certiorari of Mariveles Shipyard
Corp., due to a defective certificate of nonforum shopping and nonsubmission of the required
documents to accompany said petition. Mariveles Shipyard Corp., had filed a special civil action for
[2]
certiorari with the Court of Appeals to nullify the resolution of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), dated April 22, 1999, in NLRC NCR Case No. 000900544096A, which
[3]
affirmed the Labor Arbiters decision, dated May 22, 1998, holding petitioner jointly and severally
liablewithLongestForceInvestigationandSecurityAgency,Inc.,fortheunderpaymentofwagesand
overtime pay due to the private respondents. Likewise challenged in the instant petition is the
[4]
resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated July 12, 2000, denying petitioners motion for
reconsideration.
Thefacts,asculledfromrecords,areasfollows:
Sometime on October 1993, petitioner Mariveles Shipyard Corporation engaged the services of
LongestForceInvestigationandSecurityAgency,Inc.(hereinafter,LongestForce)torendersecurity
servicesatitspremises.Pursuanttotheiragreement,LongestForcedeployeditssecurityguards,the
privaterespondentsherein,atthepetitionersshipyardinMariveles,Bataan.
Accordingtopetitioner,itreligiouslycompliedwiththetermsofthesecuritycontractwithLongest
Force, promptly paying its bills and the contract rates of the latter. However, it found the services
being rendered by the assigned guards unsatisfactory and inadequate, causing it to terminate its
[5]
contractwithLongestForceonApril1995. LongestForce,inturn,terminatedtheemploymentofthe
securityguardsithaddeployedatpetitionersshipyard.
On September 2, 1996, private respondents filed a case for illegal dismissal, underpayment of
wages pursuant to the PNPSOSIAPADPAO rates, nonpayment of overtime pay, premium pay for
holiday and rest day, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay and attorneys fees, against both
Longest Force and petitioner, before the Labor Arbiter. Docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 0009
00544096A, the case sought the guards reinstatement with full backwages and without loss of
seniorityrights.
[6]
Foritspart,LongestForcefiledacrossclaim againstthepetitioner.LongestForceadmittedthat
itemployedprivaterespondentsandassignedthemassecurityguardsatthepremisesofpetitioner
from October 16, 1993 to April 30, 1995, rendering a 12 hours duty per shift for the said period. It
likewiseadmitteditsliabilityastothenonpaymentoftheallegedwagedifferentialinthetotalamount
ofP2,618,025butpassedontheliabilitytopetitionerallegingthattheservicefeepaidbythelatterto
itwaswaybelowthePNPSOSIAandPADPAOrate,thus,contrarytothemandatoryandprohibitive

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/144134.htm 1/8
3/3/2017 MarivelesShipyardCorpvsCA:144134:November11,2003:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision

laws because the right to proper compensation and benefits provided under the existing labor laws
cannotbewaivednorcompromised.
The petitioner denied any liability on account of the alleged illegal dismissal, stressing that no
employeremployeerelationshipexistedbetweenitandthesecurityguards.Itfurtherpointedoutthat
itwouldbetheheightofinjusticetomakeitliableagainformonetaryclaimswhichithadalreadypaid.
AnentthecrossclaimfiledbyLongestForceagainstit,petitionerprayedthatitbedismissedforlack
ofmerit.PetitioneraverredthatLongestForcehadbenefitedfromthecontract,itwasnowestopped
fromquestioningsaidagreementonthegroundthatithadmadeabaddeal.
OnMay22,1998,theLaborArbiterdecidedNLRCNCRCaseNo.000900544096A,towit:

WHEREFORE,conformablywiththeforegoing,judgmentisherebyrenderedorderingthe
respondentsasfollows:

1.DECLARINGrespondentsLongestForceInvestigation&SecurityAgency,Inc.andMariveles
ShipyardCorporationjointlyandseverallyliabletopaythemoneyclaimsofcomplainants
representingunderpaymentofwagesandovertimepayinthetotalamountofP2,700,623.40based
onthePADPAOratesofpaycoveringtheperiodfromOctober16,1993uptoApril29,1995broken
downasfollows:

UNDERPAYMENTOFWAGES:
PERIODMONTHLY
COVEREDPADPAOACTUALUNDERPAYMENT
RATESSALARYFORTHEWage
(8hrs.duty)RECEIVEDPERIODDIFFERENTIALS

Oct.16Dec.P5,485.00P5,000P485.00P970.00
15/93(2mos.)
Dec.16/93Mar.6,630.005,0001,630.005,705.00
31/94(3.5mos.)

Apr.1Dec.7,090.005,8101,280.0011,520.00
31/94(9mos.)

Jan.1Apr.7,220.005,8101,410.005,597.70
29/95(3.97mos.)
TOTALUNDERPAYMENTSP23,792.70

OVERTIME:

Oct.16Dec.15/93P5,485x2=P5,485.00
(2mos.)2

Dec.16/93Mar.6,630x3.5=11,602.50
31/94(3.5mos.)2

Apr.1Dec.7,090x9=31,905.00
31/94(9mos.)2

Jan.1Apr.7,220x3.97=14,331.70
29/95(3.97mos.)2

TOTALOVERTIMEP63,324.20

SubTotalofUnderpaymentsandOvertimeP87,116.90

1.LuisRegondula(thesame)P87,116.90
2.ManolitoCatalan(thesame)87,116.90
3.OrescaAgapito(thesame)87,116.90
4.NoelAlibadbad(thesame)87,116.90
5.RogelioPintuan(thesame)87,116.90
6.DaniloCrisostomo(thesame)87,116.90
7.RomuloMacalinao(thesame)87,116.90
8.NestorFerrer(thesame)87,116.90
9.RickyCuesta(thesame)87,116.90
10.AndradaRicky(thesame)87,116.90
11.LarryRogola(thesame)87,116.90

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/144134.htm 2/8
3/3/2017 MarivelesShipyardCorpvsCA:144134:November11,2003:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision

12.FranciscoLenogon(thesame)87,116.90
13.AugostoQuinto(thesame)87,116.90
14.ArfeBeramo(thesame)87,116.90
15.BonifacioTrinidad(thesame)87,116.90
16.AlfredoAzcarraga(thesame)87,116.90
17.ErnestoMagno(thesame)87,116.90
18.HonarioHortecio(thesame)87,116.90
19.NelbertPineda(thesame)87,116.90
20.GlenEstipular(thesame)87,116.90
21.FranciscoCompuesto(thesame)87,116.90
22.IsabelitoCortes(thesame)87,116.90
23.MaturanRosauro(thesame)87,116.90
24.SamsonCanas(thesame)87,116.90
25.FebienIsip(thesame)87,116.90
26.JesusRiparip(thesame)87,116.90
27.AlfredoSienes(thesame)87,116.90
28.AdolarAlbert(thesame)87,116.90
29.CabanillasHonesto(thesame)87,116.90
30.CastilloAmping(thesame)87,116.90
31.RevillaElwin(thesame)87,116.90

GRANDTOTALP2,700,623.90

2.DECLARINGbothrespondentsliabletopaycomplainantsattorneysfeesequivalenttoten(10%)
percentofthetotalawardrecoveredorthesumofP270,062.34.

3.ORDERINGrespondentLongestForceInvestigation&SecurityAgency,Inc.toreinstateallthe
hereincomplainantstotheirformerorequivalentpositionswithoutlossofseniorityrightsand
privilegeswithfullbackwageswhichascomputedasofthedateofthisdecisionareasfollows:

Backwages:

10/1612/15/93=2mos.
P5,485.00x2mos.=P10,970.00

12/16/933/31/94=3.5mos.
P6,630.00x3.5mos.=23,205.00

4/112/31/94=9mos.
P7,090.00x9mos.=63,810.00

1/14/29/95=3.97mos.
P7,220.00x3.97mos.=28,663.40
[7]
TOTALP126,684.40
[8]
1.LuisRegondula(same)P126,684.40
2.ManolitoCatalan(same)126,684.40
3.OrescaAgapito(same)126,684.40
4.NoelAlibadbad(same)126,684.40
5.RogelioPintuan(same)126,684.40
6.DaniloCrisostomo(same)126,684.40
7.RomuloMacalinao(same)126,684.40
8.NestorFerrer(same)126,684.40
9.RickyCuesta(same)126,684.40
10.AndradaRolly(same)126,684.40
11.LarryRogola(same)126,684.40
12.FranciscoLenogon(same)126,684.40
13.AugostoQuinto(same)126,684.40
14.ArfeBeramo(same)126,684.40
15.BonifacioTrinidad(same)126,684.40
16.AlfredoAzcarraga(same)126,684.40
17.ErnestoMagno(same)126,684.40
18.HonarioHortecio(same)126,684.40

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/144134.htm 3/8
3/3/2017 MarivelesShipyardCorpvsCA:144134:November11,2003:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision

19.NelbertPineda(same)126,684.40
20.GlenEstipular(same)126,684.40
21.FranciscoCompuesto(same)126,684.40
22.IsabelitoCortes(same)126,684.40
23.MaturanRosauro(same)126,684.40
24.SamsonCanas(same)126,684.40
25.FebienIsip(same)126,684.40
26.JesusRiparip(same)126,684.40
27.AlfredoSienes(same)126,684.40
28.AdolarAlbert(same)126,684.40
29.CabanillasHonesto(same)126,684.40
30.CastilloAmping(same)126,684.40
31.RevillaElwin(same)126,684.40
[9]
GRANDTOTALP3,927,216.40

4.ORDERINGsaidLongestForceInvestigation&SecurityAgency,Inc.topayattorneysfees
equivalenttoten(10%)percentofthetotalawardrecoveredrepresentingbackwagesintheamountof
[10]
P392,721.64.

5.DISMISSINGallotherclaimsforlackoflegalbasis.
[11]
SOORDERED.

PetitionerappealedtheforegoingtotheNLRCinNLRCNCRCaseNo.000900544096A.The
labor tribunal, however, affirmed in toto the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner moved for
reconsideration,butthiswasdeniedbytheNLRC.
ThepetitionerthenfiledaspecialcivilactionforcertiorariassailingtheNLRCjudgmentforhaving
beenrenderedwithgraveabuseofdiscretionwiththeCourtofAppeals,docketedasCAG.R.SPNo.
55416.TheCourtofAppeals,however,deniedduecoursetothepetitionanddismisseditoutrightfor
thefollowingreasons:
1. The verification and certification on nonforum shopping is signed not by duly authorized officer of
petitionercorporation,butbycounsel(Section1,Rule65,1997RulesofCivilProcedure).
2.Thepetitionisunaccompaniedbycopiesofrelevantandpertinentdocuments,particularlythemotion
[12]
forreconsiderationfiledbeforetheNLRC(Section1,Rule65,1997RulesofCivilProcedure).
The petitioner then moved for reconsideration of the order of dismissal. The appellate court
denied the motion, pointing out that under prevailing case law subsequent compliance with formal
requirements for filing a petition as prescribed by the Rules, does not ipso facto warrant a
reconsideration.Inanyevent,itfoundnograveabuseofdiscretiononthepartoftheNLRCtogrant
thewritofcertiorari.
Hence, this present petition before us. Petitioner submits that THE COURT OF APPEALS
GRAVELYERRED:
1. .IN DISMISSING THE PETITION AND DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
DESPITE THE FACT THAT PETITIONER SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH THE
REQUIREMENTSOFSECTION1,RULE65,1997RULESOFCIVILPROCEDURE.
2..INRULINGTHATPETITIONERWASNOTDENIEDDUEPROCESSOFLAW.
3..IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION THAT
LONGESTFORCEANDPETITIONERAREJOINTLYANDSEVERALLYLIABLEFORPAYMENT
OFWAGESANDOVERTIMEPAYDESPITETHECLEARSHOWINGTHATPETITIONERHAVE
ALREADY PAID THE SECURITY SERVICES THAT WAS RENDERED BY PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS.
4. WHEN IT FAILED TO RULE THAT ONLY LONGEST FORCE SHOULD BE SOLELY AND
[13]
ULTIMATELYLIABLEINTHEINSTANTCASE.
Wefindtheissuesforourresolutiontobe:(1)WasiterrorfortheCourtofAppealstosustainits
order of dismissal of petitioners special civil action for certiorari, notwithstanding subsequent
compliance with the requirements under the Rules of Court by the petitioner? (2) Did the appellate
courterrinnotholdingthatpetitionerwasdenieddueprocessoflawbytheNLRC?and(3)Didthe
appellatecourtgrievouslyerrinfindingpetitionerjointlyandseverallyliablewithLongestForceforthe
paymentofwagedifferentialsandovertimepayowingtotheprivaterespondents?

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/144134.htm 4/8
3/3/2017 MarivelesShipyardCorpvsCA:144134:November11,2003:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision

Onthefirstissue,theCourtofAppealsindismissingCAG.R.SPNo.55416observedthat:(1)
theverificationandcertificationofnonforumshoppingwasnotsignedbyanydulyauthorizedofficer
ofpetitionerbutmerelybypetitionerscounseland(2)thepetitionwasnotaccompaniedbyacopyof
[14]
motionforreconsiderationfiledbeforetheNLRC,thusviolatingSection1, Rule65oftheRulesof
[15]
Court.Hence,adismissalwasproperunderSection3, Rule46oftheRules.
In assailing the appellate courts ruling, the petitioner appeals to our sense of compassion and
kind consideration. It submits that the certification signed by its counsel and attached to its petition
filed with the Court of Appeals is substantial compliance with the requirement. Moreover, petitioner
calls our attention to the fact that when it filed its motion for reconsideration before the Court of
Appeals, a joint verification and certification of nonforum shopping duly signed by its Personnel
[16] [17]
Manager and a copy of the Motion for Reconsideration filed before the NLRC were attached
therein.Thus,petitionerpraysthatwetakealiberalstancetopromotetheendsofjustice.
Petitioners plea for liberality, however, cannot be granted by the Court for reasons herein
elucidated.
ItissettledthattherequirementintheRulesthatthecertificationofnonforumshoppingshould
be executed and signed by the plaintiff or the principal means that counsel cannot sign said
[18]
certificationunlessclothedwithspecialauthoritytodoso. Thereasonforthisisthattheplaintiffor
principal knows better than anyone else whether a petition has previously been filed involving the
same case or substantially the same issues. Hence, a certification signed by counsel alone is
[19]
defectiveandconstitutesavalidcausefordismissalofthepetition. Inthecaseofnaturalpersons,
theRulerequiresthepartiesthemselvestosignthecertificateofnonforumshopping.However,inthe
case of the corporations, the physical act of signing may be performed, on behalf of the corporate
entity, only by specifically authorized individuals for the simple reason that corporations, as artificial
[20]
persons, cannot personally do the task themselves. In 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 Ms. Rosanna Ignacio, its Personnel Manager who signed the verification and
certification of nonforum shopping attached thereto, was duly authorized for this purpose. It cannot
begainsaidthatobediencetotherequirementsofproceduralruleisneededifwearetoexpectfair
resultstherefrom.Utterdisregardoftherulescannotjustlyberationalizedbyharkingonthepolicyof
[21]
liberalconstruction.
Thus,onthispoint,noerrorcouldbevalidlyattributedtorespondentCourtofAppeals.Itdidnot
err in dismissing the petition for noncompliance with the requirements governing the certification of
nonforumshopping.
Anent the second issue, petitioner avers that there was denial of due process of law when the
Labor Arbiter failed to have the case tried on the merits. Petitioner adds that the Arbiter did not
observe the mandatory language of the then Sec. 5(b) Rule V (now Section 11, per amendment in
ResolutionNo.0102,Seriesof2002)oftheNLRCNewRulesofProcedurewhichprovidedthat:

IftheLaborArbiterfindsnonecessityoffurtherhearingafterthepartieshavesubmittedtheirposition
papersandsupportingdocuments,heshallissueanOrdertothateffectandshallinformtheparties,
[22]
statingthereasonstherefor.

Petitionerscontention,inourview,lackssufficientbasis.Wellsettledistherulethattheessence
ofdueprocessissimplyanopportunitytobeheard,or,asappliedtoadministrativeproceedings,an
opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
[23]
complainedof. Notallcasesrequireatrialtypehearing.The requirement of due process in labor
cases before a Labor Arbiter is satisfied when the parties are given the opportunity to submit their
position papers to which they are supposed to attach all the supporting documents or documentary
evidencethatwouldprovetheirrespectiveclaims,intheeventtheLaborArbiterdeterminesthatno
[24]
formalhearingwouldbeconductedorthatsuchhearingwasnotnecessary. Inanyevent,asfound
bytheNLRC,petitionerwasgivenampleopportunitytopresentitssideinseveralhearingsconducted
before the Labor Arbiter and in the position papers and other supporting documents that it had
submitted.Wefindthatsuchopportunitymorethansatisfiestherequirementofdueprocessinlabor
cases.
On the third issue, petitioner argues that it should not be held jointly and severally liable with
Longest Force for underpayment of wages and overtime pay because it had been religiously and
promptly paying the bills for the security services sent by Longest Force and that these are in
accordance with the statutory minimum wage. Also, petitioner contends that it should not be held

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/144134.htm 5/8
3/3/2017 MarivelesShipyardCorpvsCA:144134:November11,2003:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision

liableforovertimepayasprivaterespondentsfailedtopresentproofthatovertimeworkwasactually
performed. Lastly, petitioner claims that the Court of Appeals failed to render a decision that finally
disposed of the case because it did not specifically rule on the immediate recourse of private
respondents, that is, the matter of reimbursement between petitioner and Longest Force in
[25]
accordance with Eagle Security Agency Inc. v. NLRC, and Philippine Fisheries Development
[26]
Authorityv.NLRC.
Petitioners liability is joint and several with that of Longest Force, pursuant to Articles 106, 107
and109oftheLaborCodewhichprovideasfollows:

ART.106.CONTRACTORORSUBCONTRACTORWheneveranemployerentersintoacontract
withanotherpersonfortheperformanceoftheformerswork,theemployeesofthecontractorandof
thelatterssubcontractor,ifany,shallbepaidinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthisCode.

Intheeventthatthecontractororsubcontractorfailstopaythewagesofhisemployeesin
accordancewiththisCode,theemployershallbejointlyandseverallyliablewithhiscontractoror
subcontractortosuchemployeestotheextentoftheworkperformedunderthecontract,inthesame
mannerandextentthatheisliabletoemployeesdirectlyemployedbyhim.

xxx

ART.107.INDIRECTEMPLOYER.TheprovisionsoftheimmediatelyprecedingArticleshalllikewise
applytoanyperson,partnership,associationorcorporationwhich,notbeinganemployer,contracts
withanindependentcontractorfortheperformanceofanywork,task,joborproject.

ART.109.SOLIDARYLIABILITY.Theprovisionsofexistinglawstothecontrarynotwithstanding,
everyemployerorindirectemployershallbeheldresponsiblewithhiscontractororsubcontractorfor
anyviolationofanyprovisionofthisCode.Forpurposesofdeterminingtheextentoftheircivilliability
underthisChapter,theyshallbeconsideredasdirectemployers.

In this case, when petitioner contracted for security services with Longest Force as the security
agency that hired private respondents to work as guards for the shipyard corporation, petitioner
became an indirect employer of private respondents pursuant to Article 107 abovecited. Following
Article 106, when the agency as contractor failed to pay the guards, the corporation as principal
becomes jointly and severally liable for the guards wages. This is mandated by the Labor Code to
ensure compliance with its provisions, including payment of statutory minimum wage. The security
agency is held liable by virtue of its status as direct employer, while the corporation is deemed the
indirect employer of the guards for the purpose of paying their wages in the event of failure of the
agency to pay them. This statutory scheme gives the workers the ample protection consonant with
[27]
laborandsocialjusticeprovisionsofthe1987Constitution.
Petitioner cannot evade its liability by claiming that it had religiously paid the compensation of
guardsasstipulatedunderthecontractwiththesecurityagency.Laborstandardsareenactedbythe
legislaturetoalleviatetheplightofworkerswhosewagesbarelymeetthespiralingcostsoftheirbasic
needs. Labor laws are considered written in every contract. Stipulations in violation thereof are
considerednull.Similarly,legislatedwageincreasesaredeemedamendmentstothecontract.Thus,
employers cannot hide behind their contracts in order to evade their (or their contractors or
[28]
subcontractors)liabilityfornoncompliancewiththestatutoryminimumwage.
However, we must emphasize that the solidary liability of petitioner with that of Longest Force
doesnotprecludetheapplicationoftheCivilCodeprovisionontherightofreimbursementfromhis
[29]
codebtorbytheonewhopaid. AsheldinDelRosario&SonsLoggingEnterprises,Inc.v.NLRC,
[30]
the joint and several liability imposed on petitioner is without prejudice to a claim for
reimbursementbypetitioneragainstthesecurityagencyforsuchamountsaspetitionermayhaveto
paytocomplainants,theprivaterespondentsherein.Thesecurityagencymaynotseekexculpation
byclaimingthattheprincipalspaymentstoitwereinadequatefortheguardslawfulcompensation.As
anemployer,thesecurityagencyischargedwithknowledgeoflaborlawsandtheadequacyofthe
[31]
compensationthatitdemandsforcontractualservicesisitsprincipalconcernandnotanyothers.
On the issue of the propriety of the award of overtime pay despite the alleged lack of proof
thereof,sufficeittostatethatsuchinvolvesadeterminationandevaluationoffactswhichcannotbe
doneinapetitionforreview.Wellestablishedistherulethatinanappealviacertiorari,onlyquestions
[32]
oflawmaybereviewed.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/144134.htm 6/8
3/3/2017 MarivelesShipyardCorpvsCA:144134:November11,2003:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision

One final point. Upon review of the award of backwages and attorneys fees, we discovered
certainerrorsthathappenedintheadditionoftheamountofindividualbackwagesthatresultedinthe
erroneoustotalamountofbackwagesandattorneysfees.Theseerrorsoughttobeproperlyrectified
now.Thus,thecorrectsumofindividualbackwagesshouldbeP126,648.40insteadofP126,684.40,
whilethecorrectsumoftotalbackwagesawardedandattorneysfeesshouldbeP3,926,100.40and
P392,610.04,insteadofP3,927,216.40andP392,721.64,respectively.
WHEREFORE,theResolutionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.55416isAFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION. Petitioner and Longest Force are held liable jointly and severally for
underpaymentofwagesandovertimepayofthesecurityguards,withoutprejudicetopetitionersright
ofreimbursementfromLongestForceInvestigationandSecurityAgency,Inc.Theamountspayableto
complaining security guards, herein private respondents, by way of total backwages and attorneys
feesareherebysetatP3,926,100.40andP392,610.04,respectively.Costsagainstpetitioner.
SOORDERED.
Bellosillo,(Chairman),AustriaMartinez,Callejo,Sr.,andTinga,JJ.,concur.

[1]
Rollo,pp.1213.PennedbyAssociateJusticeRubenT.ReyeswithAssociateJusticesTeodoroP.ReginoandEdgardo
P.Cruz,concurring.
[2]
Id.at6980.
[3]
Id.at5467.
[4]
Id.at89.
[5]
CARollo,p.68,PositionPaperofLongestForcebutindicatedas1994inPetitionersPositionPaper,seeCARollo,p.
25.
[6]
Rollo,pp.102104.
[7]
ErroneousSum.ShouldbeP126,648.40.
[8]
Ibid.
[9]
ErroneousSum.ShouldbeP3,926,100.40.
[10]
ErroneousProduct.ShouldbeP392,610.04.
[11]
Rollo,pp.6367.
[12]
Id.at13.
[13]
Id.at2627.
[14]
SEC.1.Petitionforcertiorari.xxx
Thepetitionshallbeaccompaniedbyacertifiedtruecopyofthejudgment,orderorresolutionsubjectthereof,copiesofall
pleadingsanddocumentsrelevantandpertinentthereto,andasworncertificationofnonforumshoppingasprovided
inthethirdparagraphofSection3,Rule46.
[15]
SEC.3.Contentsandfilingofpetitioneffectofnoncompliancewithrequirements.xxx
Thepetitionershallalsosubmittogetherwiththepetitionasworncertificationthathehasnottheretoforecommencedany
otheractioninvolvingthesameissuesintheSupremeCourt,theCourtofAppealsordifferentdivisionsthereof,or
anyothertribunaloragencyifthereissuchotheractionorproceeding,hemuststatethestatusofthesameandif
heshouldthereafterlearnthatasimilaractionorproceedinghasbeenfiledorispendingbeforetheSupremeCourt,
theCourtofAppeals,ordifferentdivisionsthereof,oranyothertribunaloragency,heundertakestopromptlyinform
theaforesaidcourtsandothertribunaloragencythereofwithinfive(5)daystherefrom.
xxx
Thefailureofthepetitionertocomplywithanyoftheforegoingrequirementsshallbesufficientgroundforthedismissalof
thepetition.
[16]
CARollo,p.122.
[17]
Id.at114121.
[18]
CondoSuiteClubTravel,Inc.v.NLRC,G.R.No.125671,28January2000,323SCRA679,687.
[19]
Eslaban,Jr.v.Vda.deOnorio,G.R.No.146062,28June2001,360SCRA230,236.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/144134.htm 7/8
3/3/2017 MarivelesShipyardCorpvsCA:144134:November11,2003:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision
[20]
SeeBASavingsBankv.Sia,G.R.No.131214,27July2000,336SCRA484,489.
[21]
Ortizv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.127393,4December1998,299SCRA708,712.
[22]
Asamended,thisshouldnowreadasfollows:
SECTION11.ISSUANCEOFANORDERSUBMITTINGTHECASEFORDECISION.Afterthepartieshavesubmitted
theirpositionpapersandsupportingdocuments,ANDUPONEVALUATIONOFTHECASEtheLaborArbiterfinds
no necessity of further hearing, he shall issue an order expressly declaring the submission of the case for
DECISION.
[23]
SunsetViewCondominiumCorporationv.NLRC,G.R.No.87799,15December1993,228SCRA466,472.
[24]
ColumbusPhilippinesBusCorporationv.NLRC,G.R.Nos.11485859,7September2001,364SCRA606,621.
[25]
G.R.Nos.81314&81447,18May1989,173SCRA479.
[26]
G.R.No.94825,4September1992,213SCRA621.
[27]
AlphaInvestigationandSecurityAgency,Inc.v.NLRC,G.R.No.111722,27May1997,272SCRA653,658.
[28]
RosewoodProcessing,Inc.v.NLRC,G.R.Nos.11647684,21May1998,290SCRA408,425.
[29]
SeeEagleSecurityAgency,Inc.v.NLRC,supra,at486.
CivilCode.ART.1217.Payment made by one of the solidary debtors extinguishes the obligation.If two or more solidary
debtorsoffertopay,thecreditormaychoosewhichoffertoaccept.
Hewhomadethepaymentmayclaimfromhiscodebtorsonlythesharewhichcorrespondstoeach,withtheinterestfor
thepaymentalreadymade.Ifthepaymentismadebeforethedebtisdue,nointerestfortheinterveningperiodmay
bedemanded.
Whenoneofthesolidarydebtorscannot,becauseofhisinsolvency,reimbursehissharetothedebtorpayingtheobligation,
suchshareshallbebornebyallhiscodebtors,inproportiontothedebtofeach.
[30]
G.R.No.L64204,31May1985,136SCRA669,673.
[31]
Ibid.
[32]
MilestoneRealtyandCo.,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.135999,April19,2002,p.10.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/144134.htm 8/8