San Miguel Corp vs. Aballa

SAN MIGUEL CORP VS.
ABALLA
G.R. No. 149011; June 28, 2005
TOPIC: RULE 7 – Certification against forum shopping
FACTS:
Petitioner San Miguel Coroporation entered into a 1-year contract with Sunflower Multi-purpose Cooperative. Sunflower undertook
to perform and/or provide for the company’s Bacolod Shrimp Processing Plant the Messengerial/Janitorial, Shrimp
Harvesting/Receiving, Sanitation/Washing/Cold Storage services. Pursuant to the contract, Sunflower engaged private respondents
(PROSPERO A. ABALLA, among 96 others), commencing on Jan.1, 1993 and renewed monthly until Sept. 11, 1995. The
dismissed employees filed with the NLRC a complaint for declaration as regular employees of SMC and for an illegal dismissal
case, following SMC's closure of its Bacolod Shrimp Processing Plant. After an unfavorable ruling from the NLRC, the dismissed
employees filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. Only three out of the 97 named petitioners signed the verification and
certification of non-forum shopping. Thereby prompting SMC to file a Motion to Dismiss for non-compliance with the Rules on
Civil Procedure and failure to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC.
CA – reversed LA and NLRC; MR – denied for lack of merit. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari. (relevant here is the
1st issue that THE CA GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING DUE COURSE AND GRANTING RESPONDENTS' PATENTLY
DEFECTIVE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.)
ISSUE:
WON the case should be dismissed for failure to comply with the requirements relating to certification against forum shopping, i.e.
that it must be signed by ALL plaintiffs?
RULING:
No. San Miguel Corporation and Sunflower Multi-Purpose Cooperative are hereby ORDERED to jointly and severally pay each
private respondent differential pay from the time they became regular employees up to the date of their termination.
While the general rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case and
the signature of only one of them is insufficient, this Court has stressed that the rules on forum shopping, which were designed to
promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its
own ultimate and legitimate objective.
Given the collective of the petition filed before the appellate court by private respondents, raising one common cause of action
against SMC, the execution made by the 3 petitioners (Winifredo Talite, Renelito Deon and Jose Temporosa), in behalf of
all the other respondents, constitutes substantial compliance with the Rules.
 their claim of the existence of an employer-employee relationship between them and SMC
o Praying to be declared as regular employees of SMC, with claims for recovery of all benefits and privileges
enjoyed by SMC rank and file employees; and illegal dismissal as additional cause of action following SMC's
closure of its Bacolod Shrimp Processing Plant which resulted in the termination of their services.
That the three indeed represented their co-petitioners before the appellate court is, as it correctly found, "subsequently proven to
be true as shown by the signatures of the majority of the petitioners appearing in their memorandum filed before Us."
 Here, a reading of the joint affidavit signed by 12 of 97 complainants (petitioners herein) would readily reveal that the
affidavit was offered as evidence not only for the signatories therein but for all of the complainants. (These 97 individuals
were previously identified during the mandatory conference as the only complainants in the proceedings before the labor
arbiter). Moreover, the affidavit touched on the common interest of all of the complainants as it supported their claim of
the existence of an employer-employee relationship between them and respondent SMC.
At all events, this Court has allowed a liberal construction of the rule on the accomplishment of a certificate of non-forum shopping
in the following cases: (1) where a rigid application will result in manifest failure or miscarriage of justice; (2) where the interest
of substantial justice will be served; (3) where the resolution of the motion is addressed solely to the sound and judicious discretion
of the court; and (4) where the injustice to the adverse party is not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not
complying with the procedure prescribed.
PRINCIPLE:
GR: All plaintiffs must sign the certification against forum shopping
XPN: If they all raise one common cause of action (see above for instances when rule on certification against forum shopping
should be relaxed.)

San Miguel Corp vs. Aballa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

San Miguel Corp vs. Aballa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

San Miguel Corp vs. Aballa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAN MIGUEL CORP VS.

TOPIC: RULE 7 – Certification against forum shopping

You might also like