Case Digest: KALAYAAN ARTS AND CRAFTS, INC. v. MANUEL ANGLO and JORGE YANSON 407

KALAYAAN ARTS AND CRAFTS, INC. v. MANUEL ANGLO and JORGE YANSON 407

SCRA 146 (2003), THIRD DIVISION

In accordance with an agreement between Kalayaan Arts and Crafts, Inc. (KACI) and the Pagkakaisa ng mga Manggagawa sa KACI, the issue of the termination of employment of respondents Manuel Anglo (Anglo) and Jorge Yanson (Yanson) was submitted for voluntary arbitration. The voluntary arbitrator ruled that Anglo and Yanson were illegally terminated.

KACI received a copy of the arbitrator‘s decision. Fourteen (14) days later, KACI filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review. On May 15, 2000, KACI filed by registered mail its petition for review with the Court of Appeals. On even date, KACI received a copy of said court‘s Resolution denying its motion for extension of time to file a “petition for review on certiorari” on the ground that the assailed decision had become final and executory.

KACI filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration because the examination of the petition for review reveals that the copy of the assailed decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator as well as the material portions and other supporting papers are neither duplicate originals nor certified true copies, and are clearly mere photocopies of said papers, in violation of Section 6, Rule 43 in relation to Section 7, Rule 43 of the same 1997 Rules.

ISSUE:

Whether or not KACI has the right to file a petition for review

HELD:

In Cadayona vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that Section 6 of Rule 43 does not require that all of the supporting papers or annexes accompanying the petition should be certified true copies or duplicate originals. What is mandatory is the attachment of clearly legible duplicate originals or certified true copies of the judgment or final orders of the lower courts.

In KACI‘s case then, with the exception of the assailed resolution of the voluntary arbitrator, there was no need for it to attach duplicate or certified true copies of the other supporting papers.

In the recent case of Molina vs. Court of Appeals which has facts similar to those of the case at bar, the Court of Appeals dismissed a special civil action for certiorari because the attached copies of the orders of the trial court (1) did not show the authority of the person certifying the same and (2) the seal of the trial court could not be identified.

As in Molina, KACI in the case at bar should not be faulted for the perceived defects of the certified true copy of the decision of the voluntary arbitrator attached to its petition filed before the Court of Appeals as KACI did not have a hand in the preparation and issuance thereof.

A comparison of the “Certified True Copy” of the decision submitted before the Court of Appeals with the “Certified True Copy” of the decision submitted before this Court all pages of which latter copy bear the stamped words “Certified True Copy” and appear to have been signed by the same signatory as that submitted before the Court of Appeals shows that the two documents are identical.