Excusable omission

To prevent forum shopping, or the multiple filing of complaints and petitions, the Rules of Court (Section 5, Rule 7) require that every complaint, petition, application or other initiatory pleading shall be accompanied by a "certificate of non forum shopping". This rule is mandatory such that its violation shall be a cause for the dismissal of said complaint. But is the rule mandatory even in labor cases? This is the question resolved in this case of Orly and eleven of his co-workers in a steel manufacturing company (HSPI).

Orly and his group filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with damages against HSPI and its president Mr. Go. They also included EMW as a party, being the original employer before it changed its business name to HSPI. When they filed their complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) they merely filled up the blanks in the complaint form provided them by the docket section of the arbitration branch of the NLRC. No certificate of forum shopping accompanied the complaint form they filed. But when they filed their position paper, such certificate was already included.

So in their position paper, HSPI and Go asked for the dismissal of the complaint of Orly et. al. They contended that the requirement of a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory even in labor cases. It should accompany the complaint filed before the NLRC since the NLRC is a quasi judicial agency. The inclusion of the statement of non-forum shopping in their position paper was not a substantial compliance, they argued. HSPI and Go further contended that the failure to comply with this requirement rendered the complaint of Orly and his group a mere scrap of paper, and the Labor Arbiter of the NLRC could not have acquired jurisdiction over the case.

Were they correct.

No. While the rule is mandatory in nature and its requirement cannot altogether be dispensed with or disregarded, substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances is enough. The rule must be construed and applied to achieve its purpose of promoting and facilitating the orderly administration of justice. It should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective which is the goal of all rules of procedure – to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible. The certification is a mandatory part of an initiatory pleading, and its omission may be excused only upon manifest equitable grounds proving substantial compliance therewith.

In this case, Orly et. al. should not be faulted for not having the certification of non-forum shopping in their complaint because the complaint form supplied by the Labor Arbiter which they merely filled up did not contain such certification. To apply the rule strictly would be detrimental to the working man.

Failure to include the certificate does not likely deprive the Labor Arbiter of the NLRC of jurisdiction over the case. The Rule is mandatory, but not jurisdictional, as jurisdiction over the subject or nature of the cause of action is conferred by law. Corrections in the complaint may therefore be allowed at the Arbitration Branch to make it conform to the requirement of the Rule on certificate of non-forum shopping (Huntington Steel Products Inc. et. al. vs. NLRC et. al. G.R. 158311, November 17, 2004).

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]