G.R. No. 155875 - AGAPITO CRUZ FIEL, AVELINO QUIMSON REYES AND ROY CONALES BONBON, VS. KRIS SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND THE COURT OF APPEALS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that herein complainants have indeed been constructively dismissed from their employment. Accordingly, respondent Kris Security Systems, Inc. is hereby directed to reinstate said complainants to their former position(s) without loss of seniority rights and to pay them their full backwages as follows: Full Backwages 1) Agapito C. Fiel P 139,799.66 2) Avelino Q. Reyes P 139,799.66 3) Roy C.Bonbon P 137,583.16 4) Diomedes Uray P 139,128.00 The other monetary claims are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. [1] Private respondent appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC which, on 08 August 2001, set aside the questioned decision of the Labor Arbiter, it held: WHEREFORE, the appealed decision dated 30 June 2000 is SET ASIDE. The complaints for illegal dismissal are dismissed for being without merit. [2] Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC in its resolution of 28 November 2001. Petitioners forthwith filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals. In a resolution, dated 16 April 2002, the appellate court dismissed the petition on the ground that it violated Section 5, Rule 7, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure because only three of the four petitioners signed the mandatory verification and certification of non-forum shopping. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals in its resolution of 29 October 2002. The instant petition raises the issue of: Whether or not the Court of Appeals acted correctly and in the interest of substantial justice when it dismissed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the mere technicality that said petition was signed, certified and verified by only three (3) out of four (4) named petitioners (all of whom claim to have been illegally dismissed by their employer) considering the following circumstances: (a) The ruling in the case of Loquias, et al. vs. Office of the Ombudsman (338 SCRA 62) where only 1 out of 5 petitioners signed the certification of their petition is not properly applicable to the present case where 3 out of 4 petitioners signed the verification of their petition. (b) The later ruling in DAR vs. Alonzo-Legasto (339 SCRA 306), (where the petition was signed by only one of each of the four (4) couples) that the requirement of a certification of non-forum shopping should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert the goal of achieving substantial justice supplanted or modified the earlier strict ruling in Loquias vs. Office of the Ombudsman (338 SCRA 62). (c) In St. Michael Academy vs. NLRC (292 SCRA 478) it was ruled that technical rules of pleading are not enforced strictly in labor cases especially where they will defeat the substantive rights of employees and in De Ysasi III vs. NLRC (231 SCRA 173), it was declared that courts must heed the underlying policy in