In Ismael v. Santos, the Supreme Court clarified the stringent requirements for certifications against forum shopping, especially in petitions filed by natural persons. The Court emphasized that the certification must be executed by the petitioner themselves, not merely their counsel, reinforcing the principle that procedural rules are essential for the orderly administration of justice. This ruling underscores the importance of personal accountability in legal filings and ensures that petitioners are fully aware of their obligations to disclose related actions.

When Redundancy Claims Clash with Procedural Rules: A Case of Dismissal?

The case revolves around Ismael V. Santos, Alfredo G. Arce, and Hilario M. Pastrana, former employees of Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc. (PEPSI), who were terminated due to redundancy. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging that PEPSI’s creation of new positions with similar duties belied the redundancy claim. However, their petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals was summarily dismissed due to deficiencies in the verification and certification against forum shopping. The central legal question is whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for non-compliance with procedural rules, specifically the requirement that the certification against forum shopping be executed by the petitioners themselves.

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the rules concerning verification and certification against forum shopping. The Court acknowledged that while verification could be executed by an attorney, the certification against forum shopping must be personally signed by the petitioner. This requirement stems from the fact that the petitioner is in the best position to know whether they have commenced any similar action involving the same issues in any other tribunal or agency. The Court stated:

It is clear from the above-quoted provision that the certification must be made by petitioner himself and not by counsel since it is petitioner who is in the best position to know whether he has previously commenced any similar action involving the same issues in any other tribunal or agency.

Building on this principle, the Court distinguished the case from BA Savings Bank v. Sia, where a certification signed by an authorized lawyer was deemed sufficient because the complainant was a corporation, a juridical person that can only act through natural persons. In contrast, the petitioners in Ismael v. Santos were natural persons, and no reasonable cause was shown to justify their failure to personally sign the certification. The Court rejected the argument that a Special Power of Attorney could authorize counsel to execute the certification on behalf of the petitioners, stating that convenience cannot be the basis for circumventing the Rules.

Additionally, the Court noted that the petition failed to indicate the material dates necessary to determine its timeliness. Specifically, the dates of receipt of the NLRC Decision and the filing of the motion for reconsideration were missing. The Court emphasized that these dates are essential for determining whether the petition for certiorari was filed within the prescribed sixty (60) day period. The Court stated:

The requirement of setting forth the three (3) dates in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is for the purpose of determining its timeliness. Such a petition is required to be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or Resolution sought to be assailed.

Even if these procedural lapses were excused, the Court found that the petition would still fail on its merits. The petitioners imputed grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC for holding that the CDS and ADM positions were dissimilar and for concluding that the redundancy program of PEPSI was undertaken in good faith. The Court, however, deferred to the factual findings of the NLRC, which had affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s finding that the two positions were indeed different. The Court emphasized that factual findings of the NLRC, particularly when they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter, are accorded respect and will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence.

The Court further elaborated on the differences between the two positions, as highlighted by the NLRC:

First, CDS report to a CD Manager, whereas the ADMs do not report to the CD Manager, leading us to believe that the organizational set-up of the sales department has been changed.

Second, CDS are field personnel who drive assigned vehicles and deliver stocks to “dealers” who, under the job description are those who sell and deliver the same stocks to smaller retail outlets in their assigned areas. The ADMs are not required to drive trucks and they do not physically deliver stocks to wholesale dealers. Instead, they help “dealers” market the stocks through retail. This conclusion is borne out by the fact (that) ADMs are tasked to ensure that the stocks are displayed in the best possible locations in the dealer’s store, that they have more shelf space and that dealers participate in promotional activities in order to sell more products.

Based on these findings, the Court concluded that the redundancy program instituted by PEPSI was undertaken in good faith. The petitioners failed to establish that the creation of the Account Development Manager position was a malicious attempt to terminate their employment or that PEPSI had any ill motive against them. The Court emphasized that redundancy exists when the service capability of the workforce exceeds what is reasonably needed to meet the demands of the enterprise.

The Court also cited Wiltshire File Co., Inc. v. NLRC, where it held that the characterization of an employee’s services as no longer necessary is an exercise of business judgment that is not subject to discretionary review as long as no violation of law or arbitrary and malicious action is indicated. In the case at bar, no such violation or arbitrary action was established by the petitioners.

Moreover, the Court affirmed the NLRC’s application of International Hardware v. NLRC, which held that the mandated one-month notice prior to termination given to the worker and the DOLE is rendered unnecessary by the consent of the worker himself. The Court noted that the petitioners assailed the voluntariness of their consent, but having established PEPSI’s good faith in undertaking the redundancy program, there was no need to rule on this contention.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for non-compliance with procedural rules, specifically the requirement that the certification against forum shopping be executed by the petitioners themselves.
Why was the petition dismissed by the Court of Appeals?	The petition was dismissed because the verification and certification against forum shopping were executed by the petitioners’ counsel instead of the petitioners themselves, and the petition failed to specify the material dates to determine its timeliness.
Can an attorney sign the certification against forum shopping on behalf of their client?	Generally, no. The Supreme Court clarified that the certification against forum shopping must be personally signed by the petitioner, especially if the petitioner is a natural person, as they are in the best position to know about any similar actions.
What are the material dates that must be stated in a petition for certiorari?	The three essential dates are: (1) the date when notice of the judgment or final order was received; (2) when a motion for new trial or reconsideration was filed; and (3) when notice of the denial thereof was received.
What is redundancy in the context of labor law?	Redundancy exists when the service capability of the workforce is in excess of what is reasonably needed to meet the demands of the enterprise, often due to factors like overhiring, decreased business volume, or phasing out of a service.
Is a company required to notify DOLE before terminating employees due to redundancy?	Generally, yes, a one-month notice to both the employee and DOLE is required. However, this requirement is waived if the employee consents to the termination, acknowledging the valid cause for termination.
What is the significance of ‘substantial evidence’ in labor cases?	Substantial evidence is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Factual findings of the NLRC, supported by substantial evidence, are generally respected and not disturbed by the courts.
What was the main reason why the illegal dismissal claim was dismissed in this case?	The illegal dismissal claim was dismissed because the court found that the positions of Complimentary Distribution Specialists (CDS) and Account Development Managers (ADM) were dissimilar, and PEPSI’s redundancy program was undertaken in good faith.

In conclusion, Ismael v. Santos serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural rules in legal filings, particularly the requirement for personal signatures on certifications against forum shopping. The case also reinforces the principle that factual findings of labor tribunals are generally respected if supported by substantial evidence, and that business judgments regarding redundancy are within the prerogative of management absent any violation of law or arbitrary action.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Ismael V. Santos, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 141947, July 05, 2001