MATERIAL DATES SHOULD BE COMPLETELY STATED IN THE PETITION; FAILURE TO DO SO, DESPITE ORDER, SHALL CAUSE THE DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION

Material dates should be completely stated in the petition for certiorari. Otherwise, such failure is sufficient ground to dismiss the petition under Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Thus, the SC held in an August 30, 2017 case, as follows:

Wenceslao, et al. vs. Makati Development Corporation
G.R. No. 230696, August 30, 2017

Facts:

Petitioners, Wenceslao et al. (Wenceslao, et al.), were former construction workers of MDC. In their complaint, the Wenceslao, et al. claimed that they were regular employees of MDC and were illegally dismissed for refusing to apply and be transferred to another contractor, Asiapro Multi-Purpose Cooperative.

LA Ruling:

In due course, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. In affirming the status of the Wenceslao, et al. as project employees, the Labor Arbiter relied on the evidence of MDC showing that Wenceslao, et al. had worked in several of its other projects before being engaged in the West Tower @ One Serendra Project and the North Triangle Building Project.

Learn how to properly craft Project Employment Contract: Human Resource Forms, Notices and Contracts Volume 1

The Labor Arbiter ruled that repeated re-employment does not make a project employee a regular employee.

NLRC Ruling:

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Fourth Division affirmed in toto the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

Wenceslao, et al. sought reconsideration of the said decision but it was denied by the NLRC.

Undaunted, Wenceslao, et al. filed before the CA a Petition for Certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction of the NLRC for issuing the order affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

CA Ruling:

The CA dismissed the petition on two grounds:

1. Non-compliant with Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court
2. The petition, on its face, lacks merit for failing to illustrate public respondent’s grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the assailed Decision and Resolution.

The CA ruled that the Decision and Resolution attached to the petition are mere photocopies of purported certified true copies thereof. The allegation as to material dates is incomplete. The Labor Arbiter’s Decision, Wenceslao et al.’s Appeal Memorandum and Motion for Reconsideration which are all referred to in the petition are not attached thereto. Other relevant pleadings and/or documents necessary to aid the Court in ascertaining the facts of the case upon which the assailed Decision is based are not attached to the petition.

Wenceslao, et al. moved for reconsideration but to no avail. After two motions for extension to file a petition for review on certiorari, Wenceslao, et al. filed the petition.

Issue/s:

Whether or not the CA should have required Wenceslao, et al. first to submit the lacking documents in the petition before giving due course to their petition and resolving the case on the merits;

Whether or not the CA is correct in dismissing the petition for incomplete statement of material dates

SC Ruling:

The SC denied the petition.

The SC held that even with copies of portions of the case records attached, Wenceslao, et al. still failed to address the lacking statement of the material dates despite clear notice of such violation together with the other grounds for the dismissal of the petition set forth in the first assailed CA resolution. Indeed, the failure to state the material dates in a petition for certiorari is sufficient ground to dismiss it under Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Section 3 of Rule 46 provides three material dates that must be stated in a petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65: the date when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received; the date when a motion for new trial or for reconsideration was filed; and the date when notice of the denial thereof was received. In this case, the petition filed with the CA failed to state the first and second dates. Thus, the CA rightfully dismissed the petition.

When they filed their motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of their CA petition, Wenceslao, et al. could have easily supplied the missing dates, i.e., when they received the NLRC decision and when they filed their motion for reconsideration thereof. However, they failed to do so.

As it is, the CA still could not determine the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration from the NLRC decision. Thus, the CA fittingly affirmed the dismissal of the petition for certiorari in the second assailed resolution for noncompliance with the rule on stating the material dates in a petition.

Wenceslao, et al. cannot justifiably insist that the CA should have required them first to submit the lacking documents in the petition before giving due course to their petition and resolving the case on the merits because the failure to comply with any of the requirements under Section 3 of Rule 46, such as the statement of the material dates, is sufficient ground to dismiss the petition.

They cannot likewise demand preferential treatment by the CA based on the liberal application of the rules. Twice were they given the chance to comply with the requirement pertaining to the material dates; and twice were they remiss in complying with the rules.

As observed by the CA, Wenceslao, et al. had “haphazardly filed their petition in grave disregard of the rules of procedure” and are, therefore, “not entitled to the liberality thereof considering that the petition is only partially rectified.

The Labor Code of the Philippines 2018 Edition by Atty. Villanueva is now available online and in branches of National Book Store, Fully Booked and Power Books