Fuji Television Network, Inc. v Arlene S. Espiritu, G.R. No.

204944-45, December 03, 2014

(Verification)

RECIT-READY DIGEST:
PETITIONER/S: Fuji Television Network, Inc.
RESPONDENT/S: Arlene S. Espiritu

FACTS:

Arlene Espiritu worked as a news correspondent/producer for Fuji Television starting 2005. In 2009, Arlene informed
Fuji that she has lung cancer. A month after informing Fuji, she was told that her contract will no longer be renewed
despite her showing a certificate from a medical professional that she is still fit to work.

Fuji then withheld her salaries and benefits until she signed the non-renewal contract. Since she needed the money for
her medical bills, she signed the contract with the letters “U.P.” which stands for “under protest.” A day after she signed
the non-renewal contract, she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NCR Arbitration Branch of NLRC

The Labor Arbiter dismissed her case saying that she is an independent contractor. Upon appeal to the NLRC, the NLRC
reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and ruled that Arlene was in fact a regular employee. It ordered the payment of her
backwages. Both Arlene and Fuji appealed the decision of the NLRC but was denied. They then filed petitions for certiorari
with the CA.

The CA affirmed that decision of the NLRC and modified it to include the payment of bonuses, 13 th month pay, damages,
among others. Fuji filed for a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Fuji then filed a petition for certiorari with the
Supreme Court.

While the review was pending, Arlene filed a manifestation stating that the SC may not take jurisdiction over the case since
Fuji failed to authorize Corazon E. Acerden to sign the verification.

Fuji alleged that Corazon was authorized to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping because Mr. Shuji
Yano, who gave Corazon the authority to sign, was empowered under the secretary's certificate to delegate his authority to
sign the necessary pleadings, including the verification and certification against forum shopping.

On the other hand, Arlene pointed out that the authority given to Mr. Shuji Yano in the secretary's certificate is only for the
petition for certiorari before the CA. Fuji did not attach any board resolution authorizing Corazon or any other person to file
a petition for review on certiorari. Shuji Yano could not re-delegate the power that was delegated to him. In addition, the
special power of attorney executed by Shuji Yano in favor of Corazon indicated that she was empowered to sign on behalf of
Shuji Yano, and not on behalf of Fuji.
MAIN ISSUE:
● Whether the petition for review should be dismissed as Corazon E. Acerden, the signatory of the verification and
certification of non-forum shopping of the petition, had no authority to sign the verification and certification on
behalf of Fuji. – NO.

RULING:

The court ruled that there was substantial compliance by Fuji with the verification and certification against forum
shopping requirements.
First, Fuji was able to submit both requirements to the Court. The bone of contention here is whether or not the
signatory, Corazon, to both requirements had the authority to do so.

Based on the secretary’s certificate issued by Fuji’s board of directors, Mr. Shuji Yano was empowered to delegate his
authority to Corazon. Further, Mr. Yano issued a special power of attorney allowing Corazon to sign the verification
and certification against forum shopping. Corazon also issued an affidavit stating that she was the office manager and
resident interpreter of the Manila Bureau of Fuji Television Network for 23 years. Having been an officer of the
company for 23 years, Corazon can be considered as having knowledge of all matters in Fuji's Manila Bureau Office
and can verify "the truthfulness and the correctness of the allegations in the Petition."

The court also discussed the difference between the requirement for verification (Rule 7, Sec. 4) and Certification
against forum shopping (Rule 7, Sec. 5).

First, the court discussed the effect of non-compliance with the two.

Non- Compliance
Verification Certification against forum shopping
Non-compliance with the verification requirement is On the other hand, the lack of certification against
formal and not jurisdictional. It only affects the form of forum shopping is generally not curable by the
pleading and non-compliance will not make it defective. submission thereof after the filing of the petition. Section
Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that 5, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides
the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and that the failure of the petitioner to submit the required
not the product of the imagination or a matter of documents that should accompany the petition,
speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith. including the certification against forum shopping, shall
The court may order the correction of the pleading if the be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. The same
verification is lacking or act on the pleading although it rule applies to certifications against forum shopping
is not verified, if the attending circumstances are such signed by a person on behalf of a corporation which are
that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed unaccompanied by proof that said signatory is authorized
with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be to file a petition on behalf of the corporation. (Shipside
served. (Uy v. Landbank) Inc. v. CA)

Lastly, the court also cited four cases wherein substantial compliance with both requirements were enough as to prevent
a dismissal of the case. Among the four cases, the Altres v.Empleo case summarized the rules on verification and
certification against forum shopping:

1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective
verification, and non- compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against
forum shopping.
2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally
defective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances
are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be
served thereby.
3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of
 the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have
been made in good faith or are true and correct.
4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification,
is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the
Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling reasons."
5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise,
those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances,
however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action
or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies
with the Rule.
6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If,
however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special
Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.

DOCTRINE:

Non-compliance with the verification requirement is formal and not jurisdictional. It only affects the form of pleading and
non-compliance will not make it defective. Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the
pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed
in good faith. The court may order the correction of the pleading if the verification is lacking or act on the pleading although
it is not verified, if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed with in order
that the ends of justice may thereby be served.
On the other hand, the lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by the submission thereof after
the filing of the petition. Section 5, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the failure of the petitioner to
submit the required documents that should accompany the petition, including the certification against forum shopping, shall
be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. The same rule applies to certifications against forum shopping signed by a
person on behalf of a corporation which are unaccompanied by proof that said signatory is authorized to file a petition on
behalf of the corporation.

FACTS:

In 2005, Arlene S. Espiritu was engaged by Fuji Television Network, Inc. as a news correspondent/producer "tasked to
report Philippine news to Fuji through its Manila Bureau field office." Arlene's employment contract initially provided
for a term of 1 year but was successively renewed on a yearly basis with salary adjustment upon every renewal.

Sometime in January 2009, Arlene was diagnosed with lung cancer. She informed Fuji about her condition. In turn,
the Chief of News Agency of Fuji, Yoshiki Aoki, informed Arlene "that the company will have a problem renewing
her contract" since it would be difficult for her to perform her job. However, she "insisted that she was still fit to work
as certified by her attending physician."

After several verbal and written communications, Arlene and Fuji signed a non-renewal contract on May 5, 2009
where it was stipulated that her contract would no longer be renewed after its expiration. The contract also provided
that the parties release each other from liabilities and responsibilities under the employment contract.

In consideration of the non-renewal contract, Arlene "acknowledged receipt of the total amount of US$18,050.00
representing her monthly salary from March 2009 to May 2009, year-end bonus, mid-year bonus, and separation
pay." However, Arlene affixed her signature on the non-renewal contract with the initials "U.P." for "under protest."
The day after Arlene signed the non-renewal contract, she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NCR
Arbitration Branch of NLRC. Arlene claimed that she was left with no other recourse but to sign the non-renewal
contract because her salary and other benefits were being withheld from her. It was only upon signing that she was
given her salaries and bonuses, in addition to a separation pay equivalent to 4 years.

Labor Arbiter Corazon C. Borbolla dismissed Arlene's complaint saying that she was an independent contractor using
the four fold test in the Sonza v. ABS CBN case. Arlene appealed to the NLRC which reversed the Labor Arbiter's
decision. It held that Arlene was a regular employee since “she continuously rendered services that were deemed
necessary and desirable to Fuji's business.” The NLRC also ordered Fuji to pay Arlene back wages, computed from the
date of her illegal dismissal.

Arlene and Fuji both filed motions for reconsiderations but both were denied by the NLRC. From the decision of the
NLRC, both parties filed for petitions for certiorari with the CA.

The CA affirmed the NLRC with the modification that Fuji immediately reinstate Arlene to her position as News
Producer without loss of seniority rights, and pay her backwages, 13th-month pay, mid-year and year-end bonuses,
sick leave and vacation leave with pay until reinstated, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and legal
interest of 12% per annum of the total monetary awards. (In the NLRC, it only ordered for the payment of her back
wages and they did not order for her reinstatement saying that there was already a rift between Arlene and Fuji to be
able to work together again)

Fuji filed for a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Fuji then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme
Court.

While the review was pending, Arlene filed a manifestation stating that the SC may not take jurisdiction over the case
since Fuji failed to authorize Corazon E. Acerden to sign the verification.

Fuji alleged that Corazon was authorized to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping because
Mr. Shuji Yano, who gave Corazon the authority to sign, was empowered under the secretary's certificate to delegate
his authority to sign the necessary pleadings, including the verification and certification against forum shopping.

On the other hand, Arlene pointed out that the authority given to Mr. Shuji Yano in the secretary's certificate is only
for the petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Fuji did not attach any board resolution authorizing
Corazon or any other person to file a petition for review on certiorari. Shuji Yano could not re-delegate the power
that was delegated to him. In addition, the special power of attorney executed by Shuji Yano in favor of Corazon
indicated that she was empowered to sign on behalf of Shuji Yano, and not on behalf of Fuji.

Procedural Summary:

NLRC – Illegal Dismissal

Labor Arbiter first ruled that Arlene was an independent contractor and dismissed her complaint.
Upon appeal, however, the NLRC reversed the decision of the labor arbiter and ruled that Arlene is a regular
employee entitled to backwages.
Arlene and Fuji both appealed the decision but was both denied.
Arlene and Fuji filed petitions for certiorari with Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals – Annulment of NLRC’s decision

CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC but modified it to include Arlene’s reinstatements, bonuses, damages,
attorney’s fees, among others.
Fuji appealed the decision of the CA but was denied.
Fuji filed the petition for review on certiorari with SC via Rule 45.

ISSUE:

Whether the petition for review should be dismissed as Corazon E. Acerden, the signatory of the verification and
certification of non-forum shopping of the petition, had no authority to sign the verification and certification on
behalf of Fuji. – NO.

RULING:

The court ruled that there was substantial compliance by Fuji with the verification and certification against forum
shopping requirements.

First, Fuji was able to submit both requirements to the Court. The bone of contention here is whether or not the
signatory to both requirements had the authority to sign them.

Based on the secretary’s certificate issued by Fuji’s board of directors, Mr. Shuji Yano was empowered to delegate his
authority to Corazon. Further, Mr. Yano issued a special power of attorney allowing Corazon to sign the verification
and certification against forum shopping. Corazon also issued an affidavit stating that she was the office manager and
resident interpreter of the Manila Bureau of Fuji Television Network for 23 years. Having been an officer of the
company for 23 years, Corazon can be considered as having knowledge of all matters in Fuji's Manila Bureau Office
and can verify "the truthfulness and the correctness of the allegations in the Petition."

The court also discussed the difference between the requirement for verification (Rule 7, Sec. 4) and Certification
against forum shopping (Rule 7, Sec. 5).

First, the court discussed the effect of non-compliance with the two.

Non- Compliance
Verification Certification against forum shopping
Non-compliance with the verification requirement On the other hand, the lack of certification against
is formal and not jurisdictional. It only affects the forum shopping is generally not curable by the
form of pleading and non-compliance will not submission thereof after the filing of the petition.
make it defective. Verification is simply intended to Section 5, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
secure an assurance that the allegations in the Procedure provides that the failure of the petitioner
pleading are true and correct and not the product of to submit the required documents that should
the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that accompany the petition, including the certification
the pleading is filed in good faith. The court may against forum shopping, shall be sufficient ground
order the correction of the pleading if the for the dismissal thereof. The same rule applies to
verification is lacking or act on the pleading certifications against forum shopping signed by a
although it is not verified, if the attending person on behalf of a corporation which are
circumstances are such that strict compliance with unaccompanied by proof that said signatory is
the rules may be dispensed with in order that the authorized to file a petition on behalf of the
ends of justice may thereby be served. (Uy v. corporation. (Shipside Inc. v. CA)
Landbank)

Further, the court also cited four cases wherein substantial compliance with both requirements were enough as to
prevent a dismissal of the case. Among the four cases, the Altres v.Empleo case summarized the rules on verification
and certification against forum shopping:
 For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates in capsule form the
jurisprudential pronouncements . . . respecting non- compliance with the
requirement on, or submission of defective, verification and certification against
forum shopping:

1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or

submission of defective verification, and non- compliance with the requirement on
or submission of defective certification against forum shopping.
2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not
necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission
or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict
compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may
be served thereby.
3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample
knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs
the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good
faith or are true and correct.
4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect
therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission
or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of
"substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling reasons."

5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or
petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to
the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the
plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of
action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum
shopping substantially complies with the Rule.
6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-
pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the
party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney
designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.

OTHER ISSUE:

W/N Arlene was a regular employee illegally dismissed by Fuji Television Network – YES.

RULING:

Arlene is a regular employee and was illegally dismissed by Fuji.

Regular Employee

She’s a regular employee because:

1. Fuji had the power to dismiss Arlene, as provided for in her contract. Her contract also indicated that Fuji had
control over her work because she was required to work for 8 hours from Monday to Friday, although on
flexible time.
2. Arlene alleged that Fuji gave her instructions on what to report. Even the mode of transportation in carrying
out her functions was controlled by Fuji. Thus, Arlene was a regular employee as evidenced by the control Fuji
had over her.
 3. The court also said that the test for determining regular employment is whether there is a reasonable
connection between the employee's activities and the usual business of the employer. Article 280 of the Labor
Code provides that the nature of work must be "necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer" as the test for determining regular employment. Arlene's tasks included monitoring and getting
news stories, reporting interviewing subjects in front of a video camera," "the timely submission of news and
current events reports pertaining to the Philippines, and traveling to Fuji's regional office in Thailand." She also
had to report for work in Fuji's office in Manila from Mondays to Fridays, 8 hours per day. She had no
equipment and had to use the facilities of Fuji to accomplish her tasks.
4. The successive renewals of Arlene's contract indicated the necessity and desirability of her work in the usual
course of Fuji's business.

Because of these, Arlene had become a regular employee with the right to security of tenure.

Illegal Dismissal
The expiration of Arlene's contract does not negate the finding of illegal dismissal by Fuji. A month after Arlene
informed Fuji of her illness and before the expiration of her existing contract then, Fuji informed her that her
contract will no longer be renewed. This is tantamount to constructive dismissal. To make matters worse, Arlene was
asked to sign a letter of resignation prepared by Fuji.

Further, there is no evidence showing that Arlene was accorded due process. After informing her employer of her lung
cancer, she was not given the chance to present medical certificates. Fuji immediately concluded that Arlene could no
longer perform her duties because of chemotherapy. It did not ask her how her condition would affect her work.
Neither did it suggest for her to take a leave, even though she was entitled to sick leaves. Worse, it did not present any
certificate from a competent public health authority. What Fuji did was to inform her that her contract would no
longer be renewed, and when she did not agree, her salary was withheld.

Award of Damages
The court also ruled that the award of damages was necessary given the oppressive approach that Fuji employed
towards Arlene (withholding her salaries and benefits until she signed the non-renewal contract).