“ACCORDINGLY, and to strictly enforce the aforesaid circulars to attain their objectives (Carrara Marble Phil., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127059, January 22, 1997; Far Eastern Shipping Co. vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 30), the Court [r]esolved to

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY, and to strictly enforce the aforesaid circulars to attain their objectives (Carrara Marble Phil., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127059, January 22, 1997; Far Eastern Shipping Co. vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 30), the Court [r]esolved to DISMISS the petition for a defective or insufficient verification and certification thereof. [4] The second assailed Resolution, on the other hand, denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. The Antecedents Petitioners claim to be employees of the Specialized Packaging Development Corporation (SPDC), a business entity engaged in the repackaging of cosmetic products. In three separate Complaints, they charged SPDC and alleged labor recruiters Eusebio Camacho General Services (ECGS) and MPL Services with illegal dismissal; and with nonpayment of overtime, premium and 13 th month pays, and night differential. The cases were later consolidated and assigned to Labor Arbiter (LA) Salimathar Nambi. On June 30, 1995, the LA issued his Decision in favor of petitioners, because SPDC and MPL Services had failed to submit their position papers on or before the deadline. SPDC was ordered to reinstate all petitioners to their former positions and to pay them back wages, premium pay for holidays and rest days, service incentive leave pay and 13 th month pay. The LAs Decision was appealed by SPDC to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which set aside the ruling and ordered the case remanded to LA Nambi for further proceedings. The case was then set again for hearings. Respondents SPDC and ECGS submitted their position papers five months after the case had been considered submitted for decision. On December 14, 1999, LA Nambi issued a second Decision finding petitioners employment to have been illegally terminated by SPDC. The NLRC, however, again reversed and set aside this new Decision on June 9, 2000. On January 29, 2001, petitioners appealed to the CA. Ruling of the CA The Petition was dismissed by the CA, which found the verification and the certification against forum shopping to be either defective or insufficient. It justified its ruling thus: x x x [I]t appears that there are twenty-five (25) principal parties-petitioners who were former workers of private respondent Corporation and complainants in NLRC NCR Case Nos. 00-04-03325-94, 00-05-03727-94 and 00-05-03971-94 as a result of their being laid-off from employment. Perusing the verification and certification[,] however, it also appears that it was executed and signed by only two (2) petitioners, namely, Evelyn Dolom and Criselina Anquilo, among the said twenty-five (25) principal petitioners. The duty to verify and certify under oath is strictly addressed to all the twenty-five (25) principal petitioners. To allow only two (2) of them to execute the required verification and certification, without the proper authorization of the others, would render Revised Circular No. 28-91 and Administrative Circular No. 04-94 (now Sec. 5, R