G.R. NO. 160455 - ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY AND EDWIN P. BERNAL, VS. JOVITA S. MANALO.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the above dismissal order is hereby RECONSIDERED AND SET ASIDE , only insofar as the signing petitioner, Fr. Joel Tabora, S.J. is concerned. As to the other two (2) petitioners, Ateneo de Naga University and Edwin P. Bernal, the dismissal STANDS . It should be noted that We are not persuaded by the late filing of the Special Power of Attorney executed by Bernal in favor of Fr. Tabora.....The same is true with the two (2) Secretary's Certificates ..... For if indeed said empowerments were existing before the filing hereof, it should have been mentioned in the petition. None was alleged in the petition. Moreover, We cannot see any reason why despite having priorly authorized Fr. Tabora and Bernal on November 6, 2002 to file the petition at bar, on July 7, 2003, the same Board of Trustees will unanimously pass and adopt another similar resolution of authority to Fr. Tabora and Bernal. Noteworthy too is that the Secretary's Certificate dated November 6, 2002 was never mentioned in petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration thereby putting the same on high suspicion. ACCORDINGLY, petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED insofar as petitioners Ateneo de Naga University and Edwin P. Bernal are concerned, while the same is GRANTED relative to petitioner Fr. Joel Tabora, and this petition is ordered REINSTATED as far as he is concerned. " [12] Petitioners then filed with this Court the petition at bar. They allege therein that the Court of Appeals committed gross and prejudicial error in dismissing the petition as far as they were concerned. They argue that they and Fr. Tabora share a common interest in the subject matter of CA-G.R. SP No. 74899, that they collectively filed the petition to uphold their common interest, and that they have substantially complied with Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court by subsequently presenting proof that Fr. Tabora was authorized to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping on their behalf. Thus, they assert that such dismissal was irregular and not in conformity with the applicable decisions of this Court. In her Comment, [13] respondent claims that petitioners and Fr. Tabora do not share a common interest as not all of them were adjudged liable by the labor arbiter and the NLRC. Only petitioner ADNU was held liable for the relief granted; as such, petitioner Bernal and Fr. Tabora have no cause of action against either respondent or the NLRC. Respondent further averred that petitioners cannot invoke substantial compliance with Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court as their belated submission of the Special Power of Attorney and Secretary's Certificates was highly suspect. As regards the certificates, respondent additionally declared their submission to be evidently an afterthought as they were put forward only after respondent repeatedly pointed out the absence of authority of Fr. Tabora. After the filing by petitioners of the Reply to the Comment, the Court gave due course to the petition an