G.R. No. 180755 June 19, 2009
Pediatrica, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Joselito T. Rafaeles, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Joselito T. Rafaeles was employed as a Professional Service Representative (medical representative) by petitioner Pediatrica, Inc. His duties included detailing products to doctors and submitting accurate Call Report Slips, which recorded doctor visits and sample distributions. Petitioner considered submission of inaccurate slips or those with false information or forged signatures a serious offense. On February 27, 2004, petitioner issued a memorandum to respondent requiring him to explain discrepancies in his Call Report Slips, attaching several doctors’ written disclaimers that they did not sign the slips. In his explanation, respondent claimed that when doctors were absent, clinic personnel were authorized to receive samples and sign on the doctors’ behalf. Petitioner’s Operations Director later investigated and found that doctors did not allow such practice, with one doctor submitting an affidavit to that effect. On April 29, 2004, respondent clarified that he never claimed doctors instructed their staff to sign, but that the staff signed as proof of sample receipt. On May 8, 2004, petitioner terminated respondent’s employment for violation of company policy and loss of confidence.
Respondent filed an illegal dismissal complaint before the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent, ordering reinstatement and payment of backwages. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC. On January 25, 2006, the NLRC dismissed the appeal because the appeal bond’s supporting Joint Declaration was defective—only the bonding company representative’s Community Tax Certificate (CTC) was indicated in the jurat, suggesting the other declarants (petitioner’s representative and counsel) did not appear before the notary. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching a certification from the notary public stating all declarants appeared and exhibited their CTCs. The NLRC denied the motion, noting the jurat itself only listed one CTC. Petitioner then filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA denied the petition, affirming the NLRC’s dismissal due to the defective Joint Declaration, noting the jurat lacked the CTC numbers of the other declarants and that the bond was posted by Unilab (petitioner’s parent company), a separate juridical entity. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC’s dismissal of petitioner’s appeal due to a perceived fatal technical defect in the appeal bond’s Joint Declaration.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s decision. The NLRC correctly dismissed the appeal for non-perfection due to petitioner’s failure to comply with procedural requirements under the NLRC Rules of Procedure. Appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised strictly in accordance with the law; perfection of an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. While procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice, the circumstances of this case do not warrant such relaxation. The notary public’s certification submitted by petitioner was a belated attempt to cure the procedural lapse. The failure of petitioner’s representative and counsel to indicate their CTC numbers on the Joint Declaration, despite allegedly appearing before the notary, was unexplained. Allowing the certification to cure the defect would undermine the integrity of notarized documents. The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal.