In a dispute over illegal dismissal, the Supreme Court affirmed that failing to include a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping with an appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) is a critical error. This means the appeal is not perfected, and the Labor Arbiter’s decision becomes final and executory. This ruling underscores the importance of strictly adhering to procedural rules when appealing labor decisions.

PLDT’s Appeal and the Missing Certificate: A Case of Procedural Non-Compliance

This case revolves around a labor dispute between Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) and several employees, Rizalina Raut, Leila Emnace, and Gina Capistrano, who claimed illegal dismissal and unpaid wages. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of the employees, ordering their reinstatement and payment of backwages. PLDT appealed this decision, but the NLRC dismissed the appeal because PLDT failed to include a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping, a document affirming that the company had not filed similar cases elsewhere.

PLDT argued that the only essential requirements for an appeal are filing within the prescribed period and posting a bond for monetary awards. The Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the NLRC Rules of Procedure also mandate the inclusion of a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. This requirement is not merely a formality; it’s a critical component of a complete appeal.

The court underscored that an appeal is a statutory privilege, not a constitutional right. Therefore, parties must strictly comply with the rules to avail themselves of this privilege. The absence of the certificate rendered PLDT’s appeal defective, leading to the finality of the Labor Arbiter’s decision. As the court in Accessories Specialist, Inc. v. Alabanza stated:

“Perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. The requirements for perfecting an appeal must, as a rule, be strictly followed.”

The Court noted PLDT’s attempt to challenge the Labor Arbiter’s order of execution, arguing that it increased the original judgment award and improperly ordered the employees’ reinstatement as regular employees. The Court addressed the order of execution of the Labor Arbiter. However, the court cited Article 279 and 280 of the Labor Code:

ART. 279. Security of Tenure. – In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.

ART. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. – The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

The Supreme Court dismissed these arguments, pointing out that the original decision did classify the employees as regular, regardless of the claim to the contrary. Furthermore, the order of execution was deemed consistent with the original decision’s intent, ensuring that the employees received the wages and benefits due to them as regular employees.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the absence of a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping in PLDT’s appeal to the NLRC warranted the dismissal of the appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that it did.
What is a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping?	It is a document affirming that the appealing party has not filed any similar cases in other venues. It prevents parties from pursuing the same claim simultaneously in different courts or tribunals.
Why is the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping important?	It is crucial for the perfection of an appeal before the NLRC. Its absence makes the appeal defective, preventing the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction over the appeal.
What happens if an appeal is not perfected?	If an appeal is not perfected, the decision of the lower court or tribunal becomes final and executory. This means the ruling can then be enforced.
Did PLDT argue that they did not need to provide the Certificate?	Yes, PLDT contended that only the timely filing of the appeal and the posting of a bond were necessary. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reiterating the necessity of the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping.
What did the Labor Arbiter initially decide in this case?	The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the employees, ordering their reinstatement and the payment of backwages. This decision was what PLDT sought to appeal.
How did the Court view PLDT’s attempt to challenge the Labor Arbiter’s execution order?	The Supreme Court found PLDT’s challenge to be without merit. It affirmed that the execution order was consistent with the original decision, which had already determined the employees’ status and rights.
What is the practical implication of this ruling?	This ruling underscores the importance of strictly complying with procedural rules when filing an appeal. Failure to do so, even with seemingly minor requirements, can result in the dismissal of the appeal and the finality of the lower court’s decision.

This case serves as a potent reminder of the significance of adhering to procedural rules in legal proceedings. While substantive rights are crucial, the failure to comply with procedural requirements can have detrimental consequences, ultimately affecting the outcome of a case. The importance of due diligence in fulfilling all the necessary requirements when filing appeals to ensure their proper perfection.

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: Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Raut, G.R. No. 174209, August 25, 2009