Amen-Amen vs.

CA
GR No. 143424

PLAINTIFF: Danilo Amen-Amen

DEFENDANT: CA, NLRC, Toyota Davao City
DATE: August 8, 2001
PONENTE: August 8, 2001
TOPIC:

Facts:

 This is a case wherein, Danilo Amen-Amen filed a complaint for illegal suspension and dismissal, separation pay, 13th
month pay, performance incentive pay and sick leave pay against Toyota Davao city
 LA decided in favor of Amen-Amen
 Toyota, appealed to the NLRC, which reversed LA, because the termination was with just cause and due process of law
o NLRC denied MR of Danilo
 CA: Danilo elevated the matter via Rule 65
o Dismissed the petition for non-cpmliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the ROC
 Petitioner claims that his failure to indicate an explanation was due to honest mistake and/or oversight and that labor
cases should be spared from strict compliance with technical rules of procedure – (SC not persuaded)

Issue: W/N CA erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of lack of explanation of service by registered mail, NO

Ruling:

It is not disputed that petitioner’s Petition for Certiorari filed on the CA did not contain an explanation why resort was made to other
modes of service of the petition to the parties concerned.

Sec. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. - Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall
be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a
written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this rule may be cause to consider the paper as
not filed.

The mandatory nature of this rule requiring personal service whenever practicable, said section gives the court the discretion to
consider a pleading or paper as not filed if the other modes of service or filing were resorted to and no written explanation was made
as to why personal service was not done in the first place.

In Solar case:

“Strictest compliance with Section 11 of Rule 13 is mandated one month from promulgation of this decision.”

ROC took effect 3years and 2years after the promulgation of Solar case.

Clearly, there is no excuse for its non-compliance, especially, not on mere reliance on the liberal construction of rules.

We adhere to the pronouncement in the Solar case that, "if motions to expunge or strike out pleadings for violation of Section 11 of
Rule 13 were to be indiscriminately resolved under Section 6 of Rule 1 9 Section 6, Rule 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Construction. - These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. " or as in this case, under the general "protection to labor clauses in the
Constitution, "then Section 11 would become meaningless and its sound purpose negated.