Magallanes v.

Sun Yat Sen Elementary School

Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. | G.R. No. 160876 | Jan. 18, 2008
Topic: General Principles of Remedial Law; Objective of Procedural Laws
Nature: Petition for Review on Certiorari
Memory Aid: It doesn't matter if it's the wrong GR number
 
PARTIES
AZUCENA MAGALLANES, EVELYN BACOLOD and HEIRS OF JUDITH COTECSON, petitioners*, vs.
*The petitioners, plus Grace Gonzales, and Bella Gonzales were all employed as teachers in the Sun Yat Sen Elementary School in
Surigao City.
 
SUN YAT SEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, PAZ GO, ELENA CUBILLAN, WILLY ANG GAN TENG, BENITO ANG, and TEOTIMO TAN,
respondents**
**Paz Go and Elena Cubillan are principals of the said school. Willy Ang Gan Teng and Benito Ang are its directors, while Teotimo
Tan is the school treasurer
DISPUTED MATTER
Petitioners’ counsel placed a wrong case number in their motion, indicating CA-G.R. SP No. 50531 (Special Sixteenth Division) instead of
CA-G.R. SP No. 67068 (Seventh Division), the correct case number.
 
If a wrong docket number is affixed on a motion, does it render it "non-existent"? - YES, but the SC applied liberality in this case
SYNOPSIS
Petitioners were all teachers at Sun Yat Sen Elementary School in Surigao City. When these petitioners were dismissed, they filed an
action in the NLRC for illegal dismissal, underpayment, payment of backwages, 13th month pay, ECOLA, separation pay, moral damages
and atty’s fees. The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of petitioners, but the NLRC reversed it. The CA (16th division) reinstated Labor Arbiter’s
ruling but deleted moral and exemplary damages. However, it further ruled that some of them (G. Gonzales and B. Gonzales) have no
cause of action because they have not passed the probationary period of 3 years of service hence their dismissal is valid.
€
With this, the petitioners filed a motion for execution of decision, in which the Labor Arbiter computed the damages but lowered amount up
to 1995 when CA said 1999. However, when the petitioners filed the certiorari motion to the CA, they got the GR number and the
division wrong. They have indicated GR number and division that applied to the proceedings stated above, this new appeal was raffled to
7th division under a different docket number. The CA (7th division) dismissed the appeal due to the procedural mishaps. Hence this
case.
 
The Supreme Court has disregarded the technicalities because: (1) the negligence of their counsel resulted in the deprivation of
petitioner’s property rights; (2) the court is not a slave of technical rules, shorn of discretion. If the application of rules would tend to
frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within this Court’s power to suspend the rules or except a particular case from its
application; and (3) this labor dispute has taken over 10 years already. Petitioners have already waited too long for what is due to them
under the law. The labor arbiter in its computation of the monetary award abused its jurisdiction when it lowered the year from 1999 to
1995 because the CA decision in the prior case was already final and executory. Hence such decision is null and void.
DOCTRINE
Although the court does not have a duty to correct the error or transfer the case to the proper division since the duty falls on the one who
caused such fault, it can waive mere technicalities in lieu of the speedy administration of justice.
 
FACTS
[May 1994] The services of the teachers (petitioners) were terminated by the respondents,
Complaint Labor Arbiter NLRC - reversed the ruling of CA - petitioners filed petition for Supreme Court
LA certiorari
The teachers [June 1995] LA Rogelio ● On appeal by CA (Special Sixteenth Division) - Respondents then
filed with the P. Legaspi declared that respondents, the NLRC, ● In lieu of reinstatement, filed with this Court
NLRC Butuan petitioners were illegally reversed the Arbiter’s Cotecson, Bacolod, and a petition for
City, dismissed from the judgment, holding that Magallanes "shall be certiorari, docketed
complaints service and ordered petitioners are contractual entitled to separation pay as G.R. No.
against respondents to reinstate
employees and that equivalent to one month 142270.
respondents for them to their former or  
equivalent positions without respondents merely allowed salary and backwages
illegal dismissal, However, it was
loss of seniority rights, and to their contracts to lapse. ● Bella Gonzales and Grace
underpayment of dismissed for
wages, payment pay them their backwages, ● MR by petitioners - Gonzales - they have not
lack of merit in a
of backwages, salary differential, 13th month denied acquired the status of regular
13th month pay, pay differential, and service employees having rendered only Minute Resolution.
ECOLA, incentive leave benefits "as two years of service (dismissal  
separation pay, of June 20, 1995." from the service is valid)***. Respondents filed
moral damages,     MR - denied with
and attorney’s Respondents to pay Respondents filed MR - denied. finality by this Court
fees. petitioners moral and on July 19, 2000.
exemplary damages
 
[Oct 2000] Petitioners filed with the Labor Arbiter a motion for execution of his Decision as modified by the CA.
Labor Arbiter Respondents filed Petitioner teachers then MR was erroneously filed by CA Seventh Division
 an appeal to NLRC filed a petition for certiorari the petitioner teachers
with the CA
LA computed the Argument: That the Important: This is Important: Petitioners filed a On realizing their mistake,
petitioner teachers’ computation should docketed as CA-G.R. SP motion for reconsideration, but petitioners then filed with
monetary awards only be up to June No. 67068, raffled off to the they erroneously: the Seventh Division a
reckoned from the 20, 1995 (the date Seventh Division. 1. Indicated therein the case Motion to Transfer The
time of their illegal indicated in the   number as CA-G.R. SP Case to it.
dismissal in June Labor Arbiter’s CA: the petition was No. 50531, instead of  
1994 up to October Decision). dismissed outright for CA-G.R. SP No. 67068. Important: CA Seventh
29, 1999, pursuant to   their failure to attach to 2. Stated that the petition Division denied
the CA decision in NLRC modified the their petition copies of was with the Special petitioners’ Motion To
CA-G.R. SP No. Labor Arbiter’s the pleadings filed with the Sixteenth Division, Transfer The Case on the
50531. computation and Labor Arbiter (in violation of instead of the Seventh ground, among others,
  ruled that the the provisions of Section 1, Division. that the motion is "non-
  monetary awards Rule 65 and Section 3,   existent" since it does not
due to petitioners Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules As a result, the Special bear the correct case
should be of Civil Procedure, as Sixteenth Division issued a number, hence, could not
computed from amended, which requires Minute Resolution which be attached to the records
June 1994 up to that the petition: merely noted the motion since of CA-G.R. SP No. 67068.
June 20, 1995. x x x shall be accompanied by there was no October 29, 2001  
a clearly legible duplicate resolution that was issued in Unfazed, petitioners still
original or certified true copy of this case which the motion for filed MR, but it was denied
the judgment, order, resolution
reconsideration seeks to be by the Seventh Division
or ruling subject thereof, such
material portions of the record reconsidered.  
as are referred to therein and  
other documents relevant or
pertinent thereto x x x
 
ISSUES/ HELD
(1) W/N the CA (Seventh Division) erred in holding that affixing a wrong docket number on a motion renders it "non-existent" - NO, the
CA is correct when it ruled that petitioners’ MR of its 2001 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 67068 is "non-existent."
 
General Rule:
Strictly speaking, it is a dogma that the mistake or negligence of counsel binds the clients and appellate courts have no share in that
burden. As aptly stated by the Special Sixteenth Division, it has neither the duty nor the obligation to correct the error or to transfer the
case to the Seventh Division.
 
Jurisprudence
o In Llantero v. CA - where a pleading bears an erroneous docket number and thus "could not be attached to the correct
case," the said pleading is, for all intents and purposes, "non-existent."
o In Mega Land Resources and Dev't Corp. v. C-E Construction Corp. - the duty to correct the mistake falls solely on the
party litigant whose fault caused the anomaly. To hold otherwise would be to impose upon appellate courts the burden of
being nannies to appellants, ensuring the absence of pitfalls that hinder the perfection of petitions and appeals.
 
Exception:
Important - However, we opt for liberality in the application of the rules to the instant case:
● First, the rule that negligence of counsel binds the client may be relaxed where adherence thereto would result in outright
deprivation of the client’s liberty or property or where the interests of justice so require.
● Second, this Court is not a slave of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion – in rendering justice, it is guided by the norm that
on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights. Thus, if the application of the rules would tend to
frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within this Court’s power to suspend the rules or except a particular case from
its application.
 
Application:
o This case involving a labor dispute has dragged on for over a decade now. One of the original petitioners, Judith
Cotecson, died last September 28, 2003 and has been substituted by her heirs. It is time to write finis to this controversy.
o The Labor Code was promulgated to promote the welfare and well-being of the working man. Its spirit and intent mandate
the speedy administration of justice, with least attention to technicalities but without sacrificing the fundamental requisites
of due process.
 
(2) W/N the issuance by the NLRC of the Order dated March 30, 2001, amending the amounts of separation pay and backwages, awarded by
the Court of Appeals (Sixteenth Division) to petitioners and computed by the Labor Arbiter, is tantamount to grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction - YES
 
● Might be asked: The Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 50531 had long become final and executory (decided 1999, ruled with finality by SC
in 2000). The NLRC, in modifying the award of the Court of Appeals, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction.
The Labor Arbiter computed the monetary awards due to Despite this, the NLRC modified the final and executory
petitioners corresponding to the period from June 1994 to Decision of the CA (Special Sixteenth Division) decision when
 October 28, 1999, in accordance with this CA (Special it decreed that the monetary award due to petitioners should be
Sixteenth Division) decision. The award for backwages and computed up to June 20, 1995 only (not October 28, 1999), thus,
money claims is in the total sum of P912,086.15. amounting to a lesser amount of P147,673.16.
● Quasi-judicial agencies have neither business nor power to modify or amend the final and executory Decisions of the
appellate courts. Under the principle of immutability of judgments, any alteration or amendment which substantially affects a final
and executory judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction.
 

DISPOSITIVE
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. The challenged Resolutions dated October 29, 2001, May 8, 2003, and October 10, 2003 in CA-G.R.
SP No. 67068 are REVERSED. The Order of the NLRC dated March 30, 2001 in NLRC Case No. M-006176-2001 is SET ASIDE. The Order of
the Labor Arbiter dated January 8, 2001 is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.
 

NOTE
***Under the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, only full-time teachers who have rendered three (3) years of consecutive service shall
be considered permanent.