PETITIONER Luis S. Doble, Jr. filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and payment of backwages, other monetary claims and damages against respondents ABB, Inc. and Nitin Desai.
Dissatisfied with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) decision and resolution, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA dismissed outright the petition because “the assailed National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Decision and Resolution attached are mere ‘CERTIFIED PHOTOCOP (IES)’ and not duplicate originals or certified true copies.” The CA also denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration because the NLRC decision and resolution attached to the petition were certified “photo” copies, unlike the specific requirement for a certified “true” copy, or a “clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy” of the assailed disposition.
Did the CA commit a reversible error?
Ruling: Yes.
First, the CA gravely erred in dismissing the petition on the ground that the assailed NLRC decision and resolution attached are mere “certified photocopies” and not duplicate originals or certified true copies. The CA’s inordinate nitpicking on procedural requirements is contrary to the Court’s ruling in Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Cabalo, 516 Phil. 327 (2006):
The problem presented is not novel. In fact, it is a fairly recurrent one in petitions for certiorari of NLRC decisions as it seems to be the practice of the NLRC to issue certified “Xerox copies” only instead of certified “true copies.” We have, however, put an end to this issue in Quintano v. NLRC when we declared that there is no substantial distinction between a photocopy or a “Xerox copy” and a “true copy” for as long as the photocopy is certified by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or his duly-authorized representative and that the same is a faithful reproduction of the original.
We held therein: The submission of the duplicate original or certified true copy of judgment, order, resolution or ruling subject of a petition for certiorari is essential to determine whether the court, body or tribunal, which rendered the same, indeed, committed grave abuse of discretion. The provision states that either a legible duplicate original or certified true copy thereof shall be submitted. If what is submitted is a copy, then it is required that the same is certified by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or his duly-authorized representative. The purpose for this requirement is not difficult to see. It is to assure that such copy is a faithful reproduction of the judgment, order, resolution or ruling subject of the petition.
x x x x x x x x x
Indeed, for all intents and purposes, a certified photo copy is no different from a certified true copy of the original document. The operative word in the term certified true copy under Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court is certified. The word means made certain. It comes from the Latin word certificare meaning, to make certain. Thus, as long as the copy of the assailed judgment, order, resolution or ruling submitted to the court has been certified by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or his duly-authorized representative and that the same is a faithful reproduction thereof, then the requirement of the law has been complied with. It is presumed that, before making the certification, the authorized representative had compared the photocopy with the original and found the same a faithful reproduction thereof.
In this case, a perusal of the attached NLRC decision and resolution shows that they are indeed certified photocopies of the said decision and resolution. Each page of the NLRC Decision and the Resolution has been certified by the NLRC Sixth Division’s Deputy Clerk of Court, lawyer Cherry P. Sarmiento, who is undisputedly the proper officer to make such certification. Moreover, the attached copies of the NLRC decision and resolution appear to be faithful reproductions. Thus, there is substantial compliance with Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which provides that any petition filed under Rule 65 should be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof (Peralta, J., SC 2nd Div., Luis S. Doble, Jr. v. ABB In. and Nitin Desai, G.R. No. 215627, June 5, 2017).