Amen-Amen vs.

Court of Appeals (2001)

Remedial Law Rule 13, Rules of Court

G.R. No. 143424, August 8, 2001

Nature of Action: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45

Facts: Danilo Amen-Amen (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) filed a complaint for illegal suspension
and dismissal, separation pay, 13th month pay, performance incentive pay and sick leave pay against
Toyota Davao City, Inc./Duratrak Corp. and/or Jose A. Lim, III, President before the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC), Regional Arbitration Branch No. XI in Davao City. The labor arbiter ruled in
favour of Amen-Amen. The NLRC reversed the appealed decision, ruling that petitioner’s dismissal from
employment was for a just cause and with due process of law. Petitioner’s motion to reconsider the
above Resolution was denied by the NLRC. Consequently, petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of
Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. As mentioned at the outset, the
Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for non-compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure.

Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of lack of
explanation of service by registered mail?

Held: No. It is not disputed that petitioner’s Petition for Certiorari filed in the Court of Appeals did not
contain an explanation why resort was made to other modes of service of the petition to the parties
concerned. The Court of Appeals considered the same as not having been filed and dismissed the
petition outright. Pursuant to the above-quoted section, service and filing of pleadings and other papers
must, whenever practicable, be done personally. To underscore the mandatory nature of this rule
requiring personal service whenever practicable, said section gives the court the discretion to consider a
pleading or paper as not filed if the other modes of service or filing were resorted to and no written
explanation was made as to why personal service was not done in the first place.”

The petition for certiorari without the written explanation was filed on February 4, 2000, that is, three
(3) years after the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure took effect on July 1, 1997; and two (2) years after the
promulgation of the Solar case in 1998. Clearly, there is no excuse for its non-compliance, especially, not
on mere reliance on the liberal construction of rules. We adhere to the pronouncement in the Solar case
that, “if motions to expunge or strike out pleadings for violation of Section 11 of Rule 13 were to be
indiscriminately resolved under Section 6 of Rule 1.