SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 175894 : November 14, 2008]
NYK-FIL SHIP MANAGEMENT INC., and/or JOSEPHINE J. FRANCISCO and TMM CO. LTD, TOKYO,
JAPAN, Petitioners, v. ALFONSO T. TALAVERA, Respondent.
DECISION
FACTS:
Alfonso T. Talavera (respondent) entered into a nine-month contract of employment with
petitioner NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc. (NYK-Fil) and/or Josephine J. Francisco, acting for and in behalf
of petitioner TMM Co., Ltd. - Tokyo, Japan, as a fitter on board the M.T. Tachiho vessel. As a fitter, he
performed repair and maintenance and welding works which called for him to move heavy equipment
and materials.
On several occasions, felt slight pains in his back and other parts of his body. He thus had
frequent consultations with the ship medical officer who gave him analgesics. The pain persisted and
became more severe as it radiated to his feet, hence, he consulted a clinic in Oman on August 16, 2003
and was diagnosed to have ureteric colic with urinary tract infection.
Respondent was repatriated to the Philippines following which he consulted the Sachly
International Health Partners, Inc. (SHIP), a company-designated clinic, which diagnosed him to have
lumbar strain with plantar fascitis and urinary tract infection.
Respondent thus went through daily physical rehabilitation therapy. After undergoing an (MRI)
and other tests, he was finally diagnosed to have "chronic bilateral L6 radiculopathies probably
secondary to a lumbar canal" and "motility-like dyspepsia." He was later deemed fit to resume sea
duties by specialists of the SHIP.
Respondent sought a second opinion from an orthopedic expert. The doctor recommended a
partial permanent disability with Grade 8 impediment based on the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) Contract.
Respondent thereupon sought to claim illness allowance and disability benefits from petitioners.
His claim was denied in view of the declaration by the company-designated physicians that he was fit to
work.
Labor Arbiter, finding that respondent was "not yet fit to perform his usual task as fitter" and
noting that he had been declared unfit for further sea duty, awarded him "100% compensation as
disability benefit" in the amount of $88,000 inclusive of attorney's fees. It denied, however, his prayer
for illness allowance and damages, such allowance having already been paid and the claim for damages
not having been justified.
Petitioners alleged to have received the Labor Arbiter's decision on July 13, 2005 and thus had
until July 23, 2005 to file their memorandum on appeal. July 23, 2005 being a Saturday and the following
Monday, July 25, 2005, being a special non-working holiday, petitioners filed their Memorandum on
Appeal on July 26, 2005 before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
The NLRC dismissed petitioners' appeal for having been filed out of time, it finding that "per
Registry Receipt address[ed] to [petitioners' counsel]," copy of the Labor Arbiter's decision was received
by them on July 12, 2005, hence, "the ten (10) day reglementary period within which to perfect an
appeal was up to July 22, 2005."
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the NLRC, The NLRC denied petitioners' Motion
for Reconsideration by Resolution of January 31, 2006.
Petitioners thereupon filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for, inter alia, failure to show that Marcelo R.
Rañenes (Rañeses), Vice President of petitioner NYK-FIL Ship Management who signed the verification
and certification of non-forum shopping, was authorized to sign for and in behalf of the said
company.15 Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,16 attaching a copy of the Board Resolution of
NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc. authorizing Rañeses to sign the required verification and certification
"at any stage of the subject case." Their motion was denied.
Annexed to the petition is a Secretary's Certificate attesting to the conduct of a special meeting
of the Board of Directors of petitioner NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc. in which said petitioner "is now
ratifying the actions of its Vice President Rañeses and submit such ratification to this Honorable
Supreme Court
ISSUE:
WON A TOTALLY NEW BOARD RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CORPORATE OFFICER TO SIGN THE
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING IS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED IN THE
FILING OF A PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65, BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS,
EVEN IF A PREVIOUS BOARD RESOLUTION HAD ALREADY BEEN ISSUED IN FAVOR OF THE VERY SAME
CORPORATE OFFICER AUTHORIZING HIM TO SIGN FOR AND IN BEHALF OF THE COMPANY "AT ANY
STAGE" OF THE CASE?
Or
WHETHER A TOTALLY NEW BOARD RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CORPORATE OFFICER TO SIGN THE
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING IS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED IN THE
FILING OF A PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65, BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS?
RULING:
Annexed to the petition is a Secretary's Certificate attesting to the conduct of a special meeting
of the Board of Directors of petitioner NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc. in which said petitioner "is now
ratifying the actions of its Vice President Rañeses and submit such ratification to this Honorable
Supreme Court.
The law allows a corporation to ratify the unauthorized acts of its corporate officer. With the
ratification by petitioner NYK-Fil of Rañeses' accomplishing of the verification and certification of non-
forum shopping which accompanied petitioners' petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, said
petitioner had substantially complied with the requirements of the law. Any defect in the signing of the
verification and certification of non-forum shopping is thus deemed cured. If this Court had, in some
instances, allowed the belated filing of the certification against forum shopping, or even excused the
non-compliance therewith, this Court a fortiori should allow the timely submission of such
requirements, albeit the proof of the authority of the signatory was put forward only after.
While the normal course of action would be to remand the case to the appellate court for decision on
the merits, it is well within the conscientious exercise of this Court's broad review powers to choose to
render judgment on the merits, all material facts having been duly laid before it as would buttress its
ultimate conclusion, in the public interest and for the expeditious administration of justice.
Petitioners insist that they received notice of the Labor Arbiter's decision on July 13, 2005 and not on
July 12, 2005 as indicated by their counsel's employee Cantalopez in the Registry Return Card. It is a
generally accepted rule that when service is made by registered mail, the service is deemed complete
and effective upon actual receipt by the addressee as shown by the Registry Return Card. Between the
Registry Return Card on one hand, and the Certification issued by Ms. Emily A. Gianan, Chief,
Administrative Unit of the Makati Central Post Office that copy of the Labor Arbiter's decision was
served on petitioners' counsel on July 13, 2005 and the entry of petitioners' counsel's office logbook
stating that copy of the decision was received on July 13, 2005, on the other, the Registry Return Card
commands more weight. The Registry Return Card is considered as the official record of the NLRC. It is
presumed to be accurate, unless proven otherwise, unlike a written record or note of a party which is
often self-serving and easily fabricated.
Nevertheless, this Court deems it proper to relax procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice in
view of the partial merit of petitioners' appeal before the NLRC.
