Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 17 2004.

G.R. NO. 158527 (SLT CONSTRUCTION, represented by its owner SUSANO L. TAPIA vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, (SECOND DIVISION) and RONALDO MERCADO, ET AL.)

Under consideration is this appeal by way of a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to nullify and set aside the following issuances of the Third Division, Court of Appeals, in its CA-G.R. SP. No. 74322, to wit:

1. Resolution dated 02 January 2003, dismissing the petition therein filed contra an earlier decision of the Second Division, National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC); and

2. Resolution dated 30 May 2003, denying the Motion for Reconsideration of such dismissal.

The material facts may be briefly stated, as follows:

Much earlier, in the Regional Arbitration Branch No. IV of the NLRC at Quezon City, Ronaldo Mercado, together with 34 of his co-workers, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, reinstatement, full backwages and salary differentials against SMC Metal Closure and Lithography Plant (SMC-MCLP), Gerry Abella, Susano L. Tapia Corporation (SLTC) and Susano L. Tapia. After due proceedings, the Labor Arbiter came out with a decision exonerating SMC-MCLP and Gerry Abella from the complaint on the ground that no employer-employee relationship existed between them and the complaining workers. In the same decision, however, the Labor Arbiter found SLTC and Susano L. Tapia to have illegally dismissed the complainants from their respective employments and accordingly ordered them to effect their immediate reinstatement with full backwages and salary differentials, minus the other monetary claims of the workers which the Labor Arbiter dismissed for lack of sufficient basis.[1]

Therefrom, both parties appealed to the NLRC. And, in a decision dated 15 August 2002,[2] the NLRC, thru its Second Division, affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision.

In time, SLT Construction moved for a reconsideration but its motion was denied by the NLRC's Second Division in its Resolution of 30 October 2002.[3]

From such denial, SLT Construction went to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,[4] which petition was thereat docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 74322.

As stated at the outset hereof, the Court of Appeals, thru its Third Division, in a Resolution promulgated on 02 January 2003,[5]dismissed the petition, saying:

"1. The Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping was signed by one Susano L. Tapia without any proof that she has been duly authorized by the petitioner to file the instant petition for and in their behalf as no Secretary's Certificate or Board Resolution is attached thereof.

2. There is no affidavit of service in violation of Section 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended; and

3. Pursuant to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494, the assailed Resolution of the public respondent is appealable via the special civil action of certiorari, which is the proper vehicle of judicial review of decisions of the NLRC and not through a petition for review on certiorari" (Annex "A", Petition; Rollo, p. 27).

In a subsequent Resolution promulgated on 30 May 2003,[6] the same Court denied SLTC's Motion for Reconsideration.

Hence, this recourse by petitioner SLT-Construction, represented by its owner, Susano L. Tapia.

In praying for the reversal and setting aside of the assailed Resolutions of the appellate court, it is petitioner's posture that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error (1) in dismissing its petition in CA-G.R. SP. No. 74322 on technical grounds despite its (petitioner's) compliance with the Rules through a Motion for Reconsideration; and (2) in not applying the liberal construction of the Rules despite the alleged glaring fact that the decision of the NLRC is null and void for want of due process and was rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

As we see it, the petition will either rise or fall on the singular question of whether or not the respondent Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner's recourse in CA-G.R. SP. No. 74322.

We rule and so hold that the respondent court did not.

As far back as 1998, we have made it abundantly clear in St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC,[7] that the remedy against an adverse decision of the NLRC is the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition for which must be filed with the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

It is thus truly unfortunate that despite the lesson in St. Martin, herein petitioner has to elevate the NLRC decision in this case to the appellate court thru the wrong mode of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Sure, petitioner wants us to have a liberal view of the Rules by taking its petition as one for certiorari under Rule 65. Even then, the very petition filed could hardly be considered as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, what with the fact the petition, as filed, failed to implead NLRC as a party-respondent, in violation of Section 5 of Rule 65.

Worse, the petition as filed with the Court of Appeals did not contain an Affidavit of Service, in contravention of Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. We may add that the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping attached to the petition was signed by Susano L. Tapia,[8] even as the very petition itself states that the petitioner is SLT Construction.[9] Noticeably, Susano L. Tapia did not attach any proof that he has been duly authorized by the named petitioner to file the petition in CA-G.R. SP. No. 74322. Again, this violates Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which requires the principal party to execute the certification.

FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court resolves to DENY, as it hereby DENIES the instant petition. Accordingly, the questioned Resolutions promulgated by the Court of Appeals on 02 January 2003 and 30 May 2003 are hereby AFFIRMED and this petition DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

[1] Annex “H”, Petition; Rollo, pp. 82, et seq.

[2] Annex “I”, Petition; Rollo, pp. 97, et seq.

[3] Annex “J”, Petition; Rollo, pp. 109, et seq.

[4] Annex “L”, Petition; Rollo, pp. 122, et seq.

[5] Annex “A”, Petition; Rollo, pp. 27, et seq.