Almirante: Certification of Non-Forum

Shopping
+
AA
-
DOMINADOR ALMIRANTE
May 1, 2015

LAST Oct. 6, 2003, respondent Isidra Dela Rosa-Meris instituted a complaint against petitioner
Letran College–Manila for illegal dismissal and damages before the Labor Arbiter (LA). The LA
rendered a decision dated May 14, 2004 finding the dismissal of respondent valid and legal.

On appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the LA decision was modified
by ordering the petitioner to pay the respondent separation pay benefits in lieu of reinstatement
without backwages at the rate of one month’s salary for every year of service. Both parties
moved for reconsideration. In its decision dated Nov. 18, 2005, the NLRC made a complete
turnabout of its previous stance, ruling that the respondent’s appeal was not perfected due to lack
of certification of non-forum shopping.

The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and set aside the decision of the NLRC and granted the
petition filed by the respondent. Did the CA err?

Ruling: Yes.

We disagree with the CA’s liberal application of the rules. As admitted by respondent, she filed
the appeal before the NLRC without attaching a certification of non-forum shopping to her
notice of appeal, despite the categorical requirement provided by Section 4, Rule VI of the
NLRC Rules of Procedure.

Respondent’s explanation that “she could only assumed (sic) that the certification was not so
much required or (sic) due to the well established rule that the cases before the Department of
Labor and Employment should be decided on its merit and not on mere technicalities” and “her
counsel was not aware that it is required” is simply unacceptable; and is, in fact, an affront to the
administration of justice. Clearly, such cannot be considered as a special circumstance or
compelling reason that would justify tempering the hard consequence of the procedural
requirement on non-forum shopping.

In the same vein, the merit of respondent’s case does not warrant the liberal application of the
aforesaid rules. The fact that the instant case anchors on one of the most cherished constitutional
rights afforded to an employee is of no moment since the Rules of Court may not be ignored at
will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and assessment of the issues and
their just resolution. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities and that rules of
procedure shall not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial justice, it must be emphasized
that procedural rules should not likewise be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-
observance might result in prejudice to a party’s substantial rights. Like all rules, they are
required to be followed, except only for the most persuasive of reasons.

Thus, the NLRC correctly issued a Resolution dismissing respondent’s appeal since the period
for perfecting the same has already lapsed. Consequently, the decision of the LA has become
final and executory. (Peralta, J., SC Third Division; Colegio De San Juan De Letran vs. Isidra
Dela Rosa-Meris, G.R. No. 178837, Sept. 1, 2014).

(Almirante is a former labor arbiter)