Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 154837 March 22, 2007
ANG BIAT HUAN SONS INDUSTRIES, INC., represented by EDUARDO ANG GOBONSENG, SR., Petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM and MAURO TINAYTINA, substituted by his wife GLORIA TINAYTINA, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CORONA, J.:
This is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated January 31, 20021 and June 18, 20022 respectively in CA-G.R. Sp. No. 67012 entitled Ang Biat Huan Sons Industries, Inc. represented by Eduardo Ang Gobonseng, Sr. v. Mauro Tinaytina, substituted by his wife Gloria Tinaytina.3
The facts follow.
Private respondent Mauro Tinaytina was employed as a cargo truck driver by New Bian Yek Commercial and later by petitioner Ang Biat Huan Sons Industries, Inc.
In 1997, Tinaytina filed a complaint4 in the Social Service Commission (SSC) for adjustment of date of social security (SS) coverage and remittance of unpaid contributions.5 He claimed that he worked continuously for New Bian Yek Commercial from 1969 to 1975 and for petitioner from 1976 to 1978 but both companies failed to remit SS contributions on his behalf.
New Bian Yek Commercial denied Tinaytina’s claim and countered that he was under its employ only from July 1973 to November 1974. On the other hand, petitioner averred that Tinaytina’s employment was only from October 1, 1976 to September 30, 1977 and that it paid all his SS contributions for the period.
The SSC found that Tinaytina was New Bian Yek Commercial’s employee from July 1973 to June 1975 and petitioner’s from January 1976 to November 1978. The dispositive portion of the SSC resolution read:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Commission finds, and so holds, that [respondent] Mauro I. Tinaytina, who died on April 6, 1999, was an employee, subject to SS compulsory coverage, of …New Bian Yek Commercial from July 1973 to June 1975, and [petitioner] Ang Biat Huan Sons Industries, Inc. from January 1976 to November 1978, receiving salary in accordance with the minimum wage law then prevailing.
Accordingly…New Bian Yek Commercial is hereby ordered to pay [the] SSS within sixty (60) days from receipt hereof, the amount of ₱250.05, representing the unpaid SS contributions in behalf of the deceased [respondent] for the period July 1973 to June 1975 and the amount of ₱1,773.31 representing the 3% per month penalty for late payment thereof, computed as of March 30, 2001, without prejudice to the right of [the] SSS to collect additional penalty liability accruing thereafter.
[Petitioner] Ang Biat Huan Sons Industries, Inc.[,] on the other hand, is hereby ordered to pay the SSS within the aforesaid period the amount of ₱705.90, representing the unpaid SS contributions of the deceased [respondent] for the period January 1976 to November 1978, the amount of ₱4,703.21 as 3% per month penalty for late payment computed as of March 30, 2001, without prejudice to the collection of additional penalty liability accruing after said date, and the amount of ₱45,600 as damages for misrepresenting the deceased petitioner’s true date of employment, pursuant to Section 24 (b) of the SS[S] Law, as amended.
Should [petitioner Ang Biat Huan Sons Industries Inc. and New Biak Yek Commercial] pay their respective liabilities for unpaid SS contributions within the aforestated period, the 3% penalty is deemed condoned pursuant to SSC Res. No- 397-S.97 as amended by SSC Res. Nos. 112-S.98 and 982-S.99 implementing the condonation penalty under R.A. No. 8282 (Social Security Act of 1997).
The SSS, on the other hand, is ordered to pay immediately the deceased member’s wife, Gloria Tinaytina, in her capacity as primary beneficiary, the appropriate death benefit pension effective April 1999, subject to the existing rules and regulations.
SO ORDERED.6
Both petitioner and New Bian Yek Commercial filed their respective motions for reconsideration (MR)7 of the above resolution but the SSC denied them.8
Aggrieved, petitioner filed in the CA a petition for review9 under Rule 4310 of the Rules of Court. In its resolution dated January 31, 2002, the CA dismissed petitioner’s appeal on the following grounds:
1. The [v]erification and [c]ertification on [n]on-[f]orum [s]hopping was signed by Eduardo Ang Gobonseng, Sr., alleged President of petitioner company, Ang Biat Huan Sons Industries, Inc. without proof of any written authority nor board resolution supporting his claim of being duly authorized representative of [the] petitioner. Likewise, said verification and certification was not signed by Julio Sy, the representative of…New Bian Yek Commercial;
2. The [a]ffidavit of [s]ervice is not attached to the [p]etition as required under Section 13, of Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure;
3. The assailed Social Security Commission [r]esolution and [o]rder as well as the other pertinent pleadings and supporting documents are merely photocopies and not certified true copies in violation of Section 6, Rule 43 of the same rules.11
Petitioner filed an MR but the CA denied it in its resolution of June 18, 2002.12
Only petitioner came to this Court via this petition for certiorari under Rule 65. It asks that the CA’s resolutions be stricken down, alleging that the latter erred and misapplied the law when it denied its appeal on technical grounds. It likewise seeks a ruling on the correctness of the SSC’s findings that Mauro Tinaytina was its employee from January 1976 to November 1978 and that it was liable for ₱45,600 as damages for misrepresenting Tinaytina’s true date of employment plus ₱4,703.21 corresponding to the 3% penalty per month for late payment, computed as of March 30, 2001.13
The petition must fail.
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the proper remedy when (1) any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and (2) there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of annulling or modifying the proceeding.14
As a rule, a petition for certiorari will not lie where an appeal is an adequate remedy such as when an error of judgment or procedure is involved.15 Ordinarily, the proper recourse of an aggrieved party from a decision of the CA is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.16 Petitioner should have thus questioned the CA’s resolutions via Rule 45. Well-entrenched is the rule that a special civil action for certiorari cannot stand as substitute for a lost appeal.17
Furthermore, assuming that petitioner could have properly filed a special civil action for certiorari, the fact was that petitioner failed to allege that public respondents acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
The term "without jurisdiction" means lack of jurisdiction from the beginning whereas "excess of jurisdiction" signifies that the tribunal, board or officer overstepped such jurisdiction.18 On the other hand, grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.19 The abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner due to passion or personal hostility.20 It must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.21
When seeking the corrective hand of certiorari, caprice and arbitrariness must clearly be shown.22 Petitioner should have cited how the CA and/or the SSS (through the SSC) abused their discretion in the questioned resolutions. Petitioner failed in this aspect.
At any rate, even if petitioner made the allegations required by Rule 65, its petition will nevertheless still not stand. The CA correctly dismissed petitioner’s appeal on the grounds of improper verification and certification of non-forum shopping, and non-attachment of the affidavit of service to its petition, as required by Rule 13, Section 13 of the Rules of Court. The rule obliges litigants to attach an affidavit of service to their petitions/appeals. While this is required merely as proof that service has been made on the other party, 23 it is nonetheless essential to due process and the orderly administration of justice.
On the other hand, Supreme Court Circular 28-91,24 as amended by SC Administrative Circular 04-94,25 mandates strict compliance with the rules against forum shopping. A verification and certification of non-forum shopping must be signed by the petitioner or any of the principal parties. If the petitioner is a juridical entity as in the present case, the signatory must show proof of his or her authority to sign on behalf of the corporation.26
Petitioner’s contention that technicality must give way to substantial justice is without merit. We set aside technicality only when it is necessary to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the Rules27 or when the punctilious application of the Rules will deny rather than serve justice.28 Neither situation exists here.
Finally, the Court cannot review the findings of fact by the SSC (and affirmed by the CA) that the employment of Tinaytina with petitioner was from January 1976 to November 1978. Similarly, we cannot disturb public respondents’ conclusion of fact that petitioner misrepresented Tinaytina’s true date of employment. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 does not include review of the correctness of a board or tribunal’s evaluation of the evidence but is confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.29 This Court is proscribed from examining the evidence and weighing the same in a petition for certiorari.30 In one case, we declared:
It is a fundamental aphorism in law that a review of facts and evidence is not the province of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari…[S]tated [otherwise], factual matters cannot normally be inquired into by the Supreme Court in a certiorari proceeding. This Court cannot be tasked to go over the proof presented by the parties and analyze, assess and weigh them again in order to ascertain if [the appellate courts] were correct in according superior credit to this or to that piece of evidence of one party or the other.31
Everything considered, we hold that the CA neither erred nor abused its discretion in rejecting petitioner’s appeal.
WHEREFORE, the assailed resolutions dated January 31, 2002 and June 18, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. Sp. No. 67012 are hereby AFFIRMED. Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Asscociate Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Foonotes
1 Resolved by Justice Perlita J. Tria-Tirona (retired) and concurred in by Justices Eubulo G. Verzosa (retired) and Bernardo P. Abesamis (retired) of the Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals; rollo, pp. 21-22.
2 Id., p. 24.
3 Mauro Tinaytina died during the pendency of the case and was substituted by his wife, Gloria Tinaytina.
4 Rollo, p. 48.
5 The case was docketed SSS Case No. 11668.
6 Rollo, pp. 39-41.
7 Id., pp. 57-62.
8 Id., pp. 42-45.
9 Id., pp. 63-74.
10 Appeals from Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the Court of Appeals.
11 Supra.
12 CA Resolution dated June 18, 2002, supra.
13 Petition, rollo, p. 10.
14 Mercado-Fehr v. Fehr, G.R. No. 152716, 23 October 2003, 414 SCRA 288.
15 Dwikarna v. Domingo, G.R. No. 153454, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 748.
16 Perez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162580, 27 January 2006, 480 SCRA 411.
17 Sevilla Trading Company v. Semana, G.R. No. 152426, 28 April 2004, 428 SCRA 239; Nidoy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146017, 18 February 2004, 423 SCRA 233; Alon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136422, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 550.
18 Moran, Comments On The Rules Of Court, 1997 Edition, Rex Bookstore, Manila, Philippines, p. 219.
19 Perez v. Court of Appeals, supra.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Arceta v. Mangrobang, G.R. No. 152895, 15 June 2004, 432 SCRA 136.
23 Calo et al. v. Sps. Villanueva, G.R. No. 152756, 30 January 2006.
24 Additional Requisites for Petitions filed with the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals to Prevent Forum-Shopping or Multiple Filing of Petitions and Complaints.
25 Additional Requisites for Civil Complaints, Petitions and other Initiatory Pleadings filed in All Courts and Agencies, other than the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, to Prevent Forum-Shopping or Multiple Filing of Such Pleadings.
26 Condo Suite Travel, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 125671, 28 January 2000, 323 SCRA 679; Digital Microwave Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128550, 16 March 2000, 328 SCRA 286.
27 See Casolita v. Court of Appeals, 341 Phil. 251 (1997); B.F. Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 351 Phil. 501 (1998); Dayag v. Canizares Jr., 350 Phil. 629 (1998); Estate of Salud Jimenez v. Philippine Export Processing Zone, 402 Phil. 271 (2001).
28 Calo et al. v. Sps. Villanueva, supra.
29 Masagana Concrete Products v. NLRC, 372 Phil. 459 (1999).
30 Hanjin Engineering and Construction Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165910, 10 April 2006, 487 SCRA 78.
31 People v. Court of Appeals, 368 Phil. 169 (1999).
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
