G.R. No. 196084 - NUEVA ECIJA II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., AREA I, MR. REYNALDO VILLANUEVA, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND MRS. EULALIA CASTRO, GENERAL MANAGER, VS. ELMER B. MAPAGU.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the appeal is hereby granted . The 30 November 2007 Decision of the Labor Arbiter is reversed and set aside and a new one entered directing Nueva Ecija Electric Cooperative II to pay Elmer Mapagu separation pay in an amount equivalent to one (1) month pay reckoned from his employment up to the finality of this Decision and backwages reckoned from the time he was dismissed up to the finality of this Decision. However, from his backwages, the amount pertaining to his two years suspension must be deducted. The claims for moral and exemplary damages are dismissed for want of merit. SO ORDERED . [24] (Emphasis in the original.) Petitioners sought reconsideration but this was denied by the NLRC. Mapagu, meanwhile, filed a Motion for Clarification and Motion for Partial Reconsideration. The NLRC denied the latter motion but clarified that the separation pay referred to in the decretal portion of its Decision refers to one (1) month pay for every year of service reckoned from the time of Mapagu's employment up to the finality of its Decision. [25] Petitioners elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Rules). In its September 2, 2010 Resolution, the CA dismissed the petition outright. It found that petitioners failed to sign the attached Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping and held that a defective verification and certification is equivalent to non-compliance with the Rules. It also constitutes valid cause for dismissal of the petition under the last paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46. Further, Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules which requires the pleader to submit a certification of non-forum shopping executed by the plaintiff or principal party, is mandatory. Subsequent compliance cannot excuse a party from failing to comply in the first place. [26] Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the CA denied. The CA noted that petitioners still failed to attach a signed verification and certification of non-forum shopping. [27] Petitioners seek recourse with us via a petition for review under Rule 45. Petitioners fault the CA for dismissing the case on the ground that not all of the petitioners signed the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping. They explained that only Castro, the General Manager of NEEC, signed the verification and certification because she was authorized and empowered by the NEEC Board of Directors through Resolution No. 02-18-07 [28] dated February 22, 2007, to sign on behalf of NEEC. Likewise, Villanueva, the President of NEEC, executed a Special Power of Attorney [29] (SPA) dated February 20, 2007, giving Castro the power to represent him in this case and to sign all the documents for and on his behalf. [30] More importantly, petitioners contend that Villanueva and Castro have only one defense-that they were both sued as officers of NEEC. Thus, sharing a common interest, the execution by one of them of the certifi