labor relation case 29-49 fulltext

8/17/2019 labor relation case 29-49 fulltext

1/102

G.R. No. 168988 June 19, 2007

FERNANDO G. MANAYA, petitioner,vs.

ALABANG COUNTRY CLUB INCORORATED, respondent.

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure filed by ernando !. "anaya #petitioner$

assailin%& #1$ the 'ecision1 of the Court of (ppeals in C()!.R. *P +o. 75417, dated 9 "ay --5, %rantin% the Petition of (laban%

Country Club nc. #respondent$ and settin% aside the Resolutions dated /- (u%ust -- and /- 0ctober -- of the +ational abor

Relations Co22ission #+RC$3 and #$ the Resolutionof the Court of (ppeals dated 1 uly --5 denyin% petitioners "otion forReconsideration of its earlier 'ecision.

The assailed decision of the Court of (ppeals reversed the Resolution of the +RC dis2issin% the appeal of the respondent for failure

to perfect its appeal within the statutory period. nstead, the Court of (ppeals ordered the +RC to %ive due course to the appeal of the

respondent.

The antecedent facts are&

Petitioner alle%ed that on 1 (u%ust 1969, he was initially hired by the respondent as a 2aintenance helper /receivin% a salary

of P196.-- per day. e was later desi%nated as co2pany electrician. e continued to wor8 for the respondent until (u%ust 1996

when the latter, throu%h its n%ineerin% and "aintenance 'epart2ent "ana%er, n%r. Ronnie :. de la Cru;, infor2ed hi2 that his

services were no lon%er reistin% "e2orandu2 of (%ree2ent dated 1 (u%ust 1969. Thus, by

virtue of a le%iti2ate ?ob contractin%, petitioner, as an e2ployee of *+C, ca2e to wor8 with respondent, first, as a 2aintenance helper,

and subse


2/102

The +RC found that respondents counsel of record (tty. (n%elina (. "ailon of "onsod, alencia and (ssociates received a copy of

the abor (rbiters 'ecision on or before 11 'ece2ber --- as shown by the postal sta2p or re%istry return card. 11 *aid counsel did

not file a withdrawal of appearance. nstead, a "e2orandu2 of (ppeal1 dated = 'ece2ber --- was filed by the respondents new

counsel, (tty. (ri;ala of Tierra and (ssociates aw 0ffice. Rec8oned fro2 11 'ece2ber ---, the date of receipt of the 'ecision by

respondents previous counsel, the filin% of the "e2orandu2 of (ppeal by its new counsel on = 'ece2ber --- was clearly 2ade

beyond the re%le2entary period. The +RC held that the failure to perfect an appeal within the statutory period is not only 2andatory

but ?urisdictional. The appeal havin% been belatedly filed, the 'ecision of the abor (rbiter had beco2e final and e>ecutory.1/

Respondent filed a "otion for Reconsideration,14 which the +RC denied in a Resolution dated /- 0ctober --. 15 The +RC held tha

the decision of the abor (rbiter has beco2e final and e>ecutory on 6 +ove2ber --3 thus, ntry of ud%2ent, dated 6 anuary--/1= was issued.

Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari17 under Rule =5 of the Rules of Court before the Court of (ppeals. n a 'ecision dated 9 "ay

--5,16 the Court of (ppeals %ranted the petition and ordered the +RC to %ive due course to respondents appeal of the abor

(rbiters 'ecision. Petitioner f iled a "otion for Reconsideration which was denied by the Court of (ppeals in a Resolution 19 dated 1

uly --5.

+ot to be dissuaded, petitioner filed the instant petition before this Court.

The issue for resolution&

@TR 0R +0T T C0ART 0 (PP(* C0""TT' (+ RR0R @+ T 0R'R' T +RC T0 ! 'A C0AR*T0 T (PP( 0 R*P0+'+T ((:(+! C0A+TRD CA:, +C0RP0R(T' + T *(' (PP( @(* '

:D0+' T R!"+T(RD PR0' 0 T+ #1-$ '(D* 0R PRCT+! (+ (PP(.-

ssentially, the issue raised by the respondent before the +RC in assailin% the decision of the abor (rbiter pertains to the findin% of

the abor (rbiter that petitioner was a re%ular e2ployee of the respondent.

n %rantin% the petition, the Court of (ppeals relied 2ainly on the case of (%ua2 v. Court of (ppeals, 1 where this Court held tha

liti%ation 2ust be decided on the 2erits and not on technicalities. The appellate court further ?ustified the %rant of respondents petition

by sayin% that the ne%li%ence of its counsel should not bind the respondent.

The Court of (ppeals %ave credence to respondents clai2 that its lawyer abandoned the case3 hence, they were not effectively

represented by a co2petent counsel. t further held that the respondent, upon its receipt of the 'ecision of the abor (rbiter on 15

'ece2ber ---, filed its appeal on = 'ece2ber --- throu%h a new lawyer. The appeal filed by respondent throu%h its new lawyer on

= 'ece2ber --- was well within the re%le2entary period, 5 'ece2ber --- bein% a holiday.

t is a>io2atic that when a client is represented by counsel, notice to counsel is notice to client. n the absence of a notice of withdrawa

or substitution of counsel, the Court will ri%htly assu2e that the counsel of record continues to represent his client and receipt of notice

by the for2er is the rec8onin% point of the re%le2entary period. / (s heretofore adverted, the ori%inal counsel did not file any notice o

withdrawal. +either was there any inti2ation by respondent at that ti2e that it was ter2inatin% the services of its counsel.

or ne%li%ence not to be bindin% on the client, the sa2e 2ust constitute %ross ne%li%ence as to a2ount to a deprivation of property

without due process.4 This does not e>ist in the case at bar. +otice sent to counsel of record is bindin% upon the client and the ne%lect

or failure of counsel to infor2 hi2 of an adverse ?ud%2ent resultin% in the loss of his ri%ht to appeal is not a %round for settin% aside a

?ud%2ent, valid and re%ular on its face.5

ven 2ore, it is respondents duty as a client to be in touch with his counsel so as to be constantly posted about the case. t is

2andated to inpect that all it has to do

is sit bac8, rela> and await the outco2e of the case.=

0n this score, we hold that the notice to respondents counsel, (tty. (n%elina (. "ailon on 11 'ece2ber --- is the controllin% date of

the receipt of the decision.

@e now co2e to the issue of whether or not the Court of (ppeals properly %ave due course to the petition of the respondent before it.

0f relevance is *ection 1, Rule of the --5 Revised Rules of the +RC E

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt26


3/102

*ection 1. PR0'* 0 (PP(. F 'ecisions, resolutions or orders of the abor (rbiter shall be final and e>ecutory unless appealed

to the Co22ission by any or both parties within ten #1-$ calendar days fro2 receipt thereof3 and in case of decisions, resolutions or

orders of the Re%ional 'irector of the 'epart2ent of abor and 2ploy2ent pursuant to (rticle 19 of the abor Code, within five #5$

calendar days fro2 receipt thereof. f the 1-th or 5th day, as the case 2ay be, falls on a *aturday, *unday or holiday, the last day to

perfect the appeal shall be the first wor8in% day followin% such *aturday, *unday or holiday.

+o 2otion or retension of the period within which to perfect an appeal shall be allowed.

Re2ar8ably, in hi%hly e>ceptional instances, we have allowed the rela>in% of the rules on the application of the re%le2entary periods o

appeal.7 Thus&

n Ra2os v. :a%asao, 9= *CR( /95, we e>cused the delay of four days in the filin% of a notice of appeal because the days to prevent a %ross 2iscarria%e of ?ustice since the

Republic stood to lose hundreds of hectares of land already titled in its na2e and had since then been devoted for educational

purposes. n 0lacao v. +ational abor Relations Co22ission, 177 *CR( /6, 41, we accepted a tardy appeal considerin% that the

sub?ect 2atter in issue had theretofore been ?udicially settled, with finality, in another case. The dis2issal of the appeal would have had

the effect of the appellant bein% ordered twice to 2a8e the sa2e reparation to the appellee. 6

@e pronounced in those cases that technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of etraordinary circu2stances that ?ustify a deviation fro2 an otherwise

strin%ent rule.9

Clearly, e2phasi;ed in these cases is that the policy of liberal interpretation is ation of the rules./-

(bsent e>ceptional circu2stances, we adhere to the rule that certain procedural precepts 2ust re2ain inviolable, li8e those settin% the

periods for perfectin% an appeal or filin% a petition for review, for it is doctrinally entrenched that the ri%ht to appeal is a statutory ri%ht

and one who see8s to avail oneself of that ri%ht 2ust co2ply with the statute or rules. The rules, particularly the reecutory. ust as a losin% party has the ri%ht to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the

winnin% party also has the correlative ri%ht to en?oy the finality of the resolution of hisGher case./1

n this particular case, we adhere to the strict interpretation of the rule for the followin% reasons&

irstly, in this case, entry of ?ud%2ent had already been 2ade/ which rendered the 'ecision of the abor (rbiter as f inal and e>ecutory

*econdly, it is a basic and irrefra%able rule that in carryin% out and in interpretin% the provisions of the abor Code and its i2ple2entin%

re%ulations, the wor8in%2ans welfare should be the pri2ordial and para2ount consideration. The interpretation herein 2ade %ives

2eanin% and substance to the liberal and co2passionate spirit of the law enunciated in (rticle 4 of the abor Code that Hall doubts in

the i2ple2entation and interpretation of the provisions of the abor Code includin% its i2ple2entin% rules and re%ulations shall be

resolved in favor of labor.H//

n the case of :una%an v. *entinel/4 we declared that&

ITJhat the perfection of an appeal within the statutory or re%le2entary period is not only 2andatory, but ?urisdictional, and failure to do

so renders the ecutory and deprives the appellate court of ?urisdiction to alter the final ?ud%2ent, 2uch

less to entertain the appeal. The underlyin% purpose of this principle is to prevent needless delay, a circu2stance which would allow the

e2ployer to wear out the efforts and 2ea%er resources of the wor8er to the point that the latter is constrained to settle for less than

what is due hi2. This Court has declared that althou%h the +RC is not bound by the technical rules of procedure and is allowed to be

liberal in the interpretation of the rules in decidin% labor cases, such liberality should not be applied where it would render futile the very

purpose for which the principle of liberality is adopted. The liberal interpretation ste2s fro2 the 2andate that the wor8in%2ans welfare

should be the pri2ordial and para2ount consideration. @e see no reason in this case to waive the rules on the perfection of appeal. /5

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt35


4/102

The Court is aware that the +RC is not bound by the technical rules of procedure and is allowed to be liberal in the interpretation of

rules in decidin% labor cases. owever, such liberality should not be applied in the instant case as it would render futile the very

purpose for which the principle of liberality is adopted. The liberal interpretation in favor of labor ste2s fro2 the 2andate that the

wor8in%2ans welfare should be the pri2ordial and para2ount consideration. > > >./= #2phases supplied.$

ndeed, there is no roo2 for liberality in the instant case Has it would render futile the very purpose for which the principle of liberality is

adopted.H (s so ri%htfully enunciated, Hthe liberal interpretation in favor of labor ste2s fro2 the 2andate that the wor8in%2ans welfare

should be the pri2ordial and para2ount consideration.H This Court has repeatedly ruled that delay in the settle2ent of labor cases

cannot be countenanced. +ot only does it involve the survival of an e2ployee and his loved ones who are dependent on hi2 for food

shelter, clothin%, 2edicine and education3 it also wears down the 2ea%er resources of the wor8ers to the point that, not infre


5/102

IRJespondent was not able to convincin%ly disprove co2plainants clai2s that at the outset, he was directly hired by it as a 2aintenance

helper on 1 (u%ust 1969. (lthou%h said respondent alle%es that co2plainant was hired by its ?ob contractor, *upre2e Construction, i

failed to sub2it in evidence the Contract of *ervice it had entered into in order to establish the entry of co2plainant as deployed by said

co2pany for his duties at (laban% Country Club, nc. pursuant to the said (%ree2ent. t can therefore be readily presu2ed that said

respondent did not produce the said docu2ent because the production of the sa2e will readily prove co2plainants assertion of havin%

been hired lon% before said contractor *upre2e Construction entered into the picture. @e have noted co2plainants ad2ission of

havin% been later coerced to si%n up with said *upre2e Construction by respondent (laban% Country Club, nc. which he did as he was

told in his fear of losin% his ?ob.

(s shown by respondent (laban% Country Club, nc.s own evidence, it later ter2inated its contract of service or "e2orandu2 o (%ree2ent with *upre2e Construction and entered into a new contract of service with respondent irst *taffin% +etwor8 Corporation

effective on 1= une 1994. owever by said respondents own alle%ation, even with the absence of co2plainants supposed direct

e2ployer *upre2e Construction, he still re2ained in its e2ploy until he si%ned up with respondent irst *taffin% +etwor8 Corporation

on 11 ebruary 199=. This indeed runs counter to the nor2al course of hu2an e>perience such that when a contractor losses #sic$ his

contract of service he pac8s up alon% with all his e2ployees, but in this case, co2plainant was not ter2inated fro2 the service

notwithstandin% the e>pirationGter2ination of the contract of service of his alle%ed direct e2ployer. Co2plainant re2ained wor8in% with

respondent (laban% Country Club, nc. despite the severance of the contractual relations between itself and *upre2e Construction.

The initial "e2orandu2 of (%ree2ent entered into by respondents (laban% Country Club, nc. and irst *taffin% +etwor8 Corporation

was dated, 1= une 1994, and was apparently renewed thereafter providin% under (rticle F 0n Co2pensation thereof, the followin%

vi;&

H/.-1 or and in consideration of the perfor2ance by R*T *T(+! of its obli%ations under this (!R"+T, the C+T a%rees

to pay the for2er based on the schedule of billin% rates which shall be specified in the Personnel Re


6/102

Country Club, nc. fail to establish the sa2e. or that 2atter, respondent irst *taffin% +etwor8 Corporation had waived its ri%ht to

present any evidence in its favor in this case.

0bviously, herein respondent (laban% Country Club, nc. actually resorted to contractin% out all the positions for its wor8force in

violation of law in its desire to circu2vent said e2ployees ri%hts as re%ular e2ployees under the law.4

The e>istence of an e2ployer)e2ployee relationship between petitioner and respondent is fortified by the fact that durin% his stint with

the respondent, petitioner was %iven the opportunity to attend a se2inarGtrainin% on refri%eration and air conditionin% fro2 1= anuary

1995 to 16 ebruary 1995.4/ ( certificate of participation si%ned by three of respondents officials was issued to the petitioner.

tent of the wor8 perfor2ed under the

contract, in the sa2e 2anner and e>tent that he is liable to e2ployees directly e2ployed by hi2.

The *ecretary of abor 2ay, by appropriate re%ulations, restrict or prohibit the contractin% out of labor to protect the ri%hts of wor8ersestablished under the Code. n so prohibitin% or restrictin%, he 2ay 2a8e appropriate distinctions between labor F only contractin% and

?ob contractin% as well as differentiations within these types of contractin% and deter2ine who a2on% the parties involved shall be

considered the e2ployer for purposes of this Code, to prevent any violation or circu2vention of any provision of this Code.

There is HlaborFonlyH contractin% where the person supplyin% wor8ers to an e2ployer does not have substantial capital or invest2ent in

the for2 of tools, etent as if

the latter were directly e2ployed by hi2.

Rule )(, :oo8 of the 02nibus Rules 2ple2entin% the abor Code, as a2ended by 'epart2ent 0rder +o. 16, distin%uishes

between le%iti2ate and labor F only contractin%&

*ection /. Trilateral Relationship in Contractin% (rran%e2ents. ) n le%iti2ate contractin%, there e>ists a trilateral relationship under

which there is a contract for a specific ?ob, wor8 or service between the principal and the contractor or subcontractor, and a contract of

e2ploy2ent between the contractor and subcontractor and its wor8ers. ence, there are three parties involved in these arran%e2ents

the principal which decides to far2 out a ?ob or service to a contractor or subcontractor, the contractor or subcontractor which has the

capacity to independently underta8e the perfor2ance of the ?ob, wor8 or service, and the contractual wor8ers en%a%ed by the

contractor or subcontractor to acco2plish the ?ob, wor8 or service.

*ection 5. Prohibition a%ainst laborFonly contractin%. F abor)only contractin% is hereby declared prohibited. or this purpose, labor F

only contractin% shall refer to an arran%e2ent where the contractor or subcontractor 2erely recruits, supplies or places wor8ers to

perfor2 a ?ob, wor8 or service for a principal, and any of the followin% ele2ents are present&

i$ The contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial capital or invest2ent which relates to the ?ob, wor8 or service to beperfor2ed and the e2ployees recruited, supplied or placed by such contractor or subcontractor are perfor2in% activities which are

directly related to the 2ain business of the principal, or

ii$ The contractor does not e>ercise the ri%ht to control over the perfor2ance of the wor8 of the contractual e2ployee.

The fore%oin% provisions shall be without pre?udice to the application of (rticle 46#c$ of the abor Code, as a2ended.

H*ubstantial capital or invest2entH refers to capital stoc8s and subscribed capitali;ation in the case of corporations, tools, e


7/102

The Hri%ht to controlH shall refer to the ri%ht reserved to the person for who2 the services of the contractual wor8ers are perfor2ed, to

deter2ine not only the end to be achieved, but also the 2anner and 2eans to be used in reachin% that end.

The test to deter2ine the e>istence of independent contractorship is whether one clai2in% to be an independent contractor has

contracted to do the wor8 accordin% to his on 2ethods and without bein% sub?ect to the control of the e2ployer, e>cept only as to the

results of the wor8.

n le%iti2ate labor contractin%, the law creates an e2ployer)e2ployee relationship for a li2ited purpose, i.e., to ensure that the

e2ployees are paid their wa%es. The principal e2ployer beco2es ?ointly and severally liable with the ?ob contractor, only for the

pay2ent of the e2ployees wa%es whenever the contractor fails to pay the sa2e. 0ther than that, the principal e2ployer is notresponsible for any clai2 2ade by the e2ployees. 44

'espite respondents disavowal of the e>istence of the e2ployer)e2ployee relationship between it and petitioner and its insistence that

petitioner is an e2ployee first, of *upre2e and subseecution of the 'ecision. +o costs.

*0 0R'R'.

G.R. No. 17!"60 A#$%& 1", 2008

METRO TRAN'IT ORGANI(ATION, INC., )n* JO'E L. CORTE(, JR., petitioners,vs.

IGLA' NF+U-MU, respondents.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html#fnt45


8/102

(ssailed in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is the Resolution 1 dated 4

(u%ust --= of the Court of (ppeals in C()!.R. *P. +o. 95==5, as well as its Resolutiondated 14 +ove2ber --= dis2issin%

petitioners "otion for Reconsideration thereof.

Petitioner "etro Transit 0r%ani;ation, nc. #"T0$ is a %overn2ent owned and controlled corporation which entered into a "ana%e2en

and 0perations (%ree2ent #"0($ with the i%ht Rail Transit (uthority #RT($ for the operation of the i%ht Rail Transit #RT$ :aclaran)

"onu2ento ine. Petitioner ose . Corte;, r. was sued in his official capacity as then Andersecretary of the 'epart2ent of

Transportation and Co22unications and Chair2an of the :oard of 'irectors of petitioner "T0.

or purposes of collective bar%ainin% a%ree2ent #C:($, petitioner "T0s ran8 and file e2ployees for2ed the Pina%)isan% a8as n%"an%%a%awa sa "etro, nc.)+ational ederation of abor #P!(*$. "eanwhile, its 2ana%erial and supervisory e2ployees created

their own union bearin% the na2e *upervisory 2ployees (ssociation of "etro #*("$.

Petitioners "T0 and P!(* entered into a C:( coverin% the period of 1/ ebruary 1995 to 1/ ebruary ---. *(" si2ilarly

ne%otiated with petitioner "T0 under a separate C:(. (lle%edly dis%runtled with P!(*, so2e ran8 and file e2ployees for2ed

another union under the u2brella of the Philippine Transport !roup @or8ers 0r%ani;ation)Trade Anion Con%ress of the Philippines

#PT!@0)TACP$, which ne%otiated with 2ana%e2ent for certification as the new bar%ainin% a%ent. The aforesaid intra)union dispute

was settled throu%h a certification election which P!(* won. Thereafter, P!(* rene%otiated the C:( de2andin% hi%her benefits.

0n 5 uly ---, due to a bar%ainin% deadloc8, P!(* filed a +otice of *tri8e before the +ational Conciliation and "ediation :oard

#+C":$. 0n the sa2e date, P!(* sta%ed a stri8e. Consepiration after /1 uly

--- of RT(s "0( with petitioner "T03 and #$ directed the RT( to ta8e over the operations and 2aintenance of the RT ine. :y

virtue of said Resolution, petitioner "T0 sent ter2ination notices to its e2ployees, includin% herein respondents.

Resultantly, respondents filed with the abor (rbiter Co2plaints4 a%ainst petitioners and the RT( for the followin%& #1$ ille%al dis2issal

#$ unfair labor practice for union bustin%3 #/$ 2oral and e>e2plary da2a%es3 and #4$ attorneys fees.

0n 1/ *epte2ber --4, the abor (rbiter rendered ?ud%2ent in favor of respondents. The decretal portion of the abor (rbiters

'ecision, states&

@R0R, pre2ises considered, ?ud%2ent is hereby rendered declarin% the dis2issal of the co2plainants as ille%al and

orderin% respondents "etro Transit 0r%ani;ation, nc. and i%ht Rail Transit (uthority to ?ointly and severally pay co2plainants

their separation pay and bac8wa%es in the a2ounts indicated opposite their respective na2es as shown in (nne>es H(H to H()

5H of this decision or in the total a2ount of P-6,/5,=6.7.

Respondents are further ordered to pay the su2 e


9/102

HSECTION 6 BOND. In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Regional Director involves a onetar! a"ard# an a$$eal

b! the e$lo!er a! be $erfected onl! %$on the $osting of a cash or s%ret! bond. The a$$eal bond shall either be in cash or

s%ret! in an ao%nt e&%ivalent to the onetar! a"ard# e'cl%sive of daages and attorne!(s fees.H

n this case IpetitionersJ filed a property bond, and applyin% a liberal interpretation of the above Rule and findin% support in the

*upre2e Court pronounce2ent in the case of AR")"e2orial "edical Center, et al. vs. +RC, et al., !.R. +o. 11-419

"arch /, 1997, we conditionally accepted the property bond sub?ect to the sub2ission of the re


10/102

n the case at bar, petitioners directly went to the Court of (ppeals on certiorari without filin% a 2otion for reconsideration with the

+RC. The 2otion for reconsideration would have aptly furnished a plain, speedy, and adeercise of its ori%inal ?urisdiction, will not ta8e co%ni;ance of a petition for certiorari under Rule =5, unless the lowe

court has been %iven the opportunity to correct the error i2puted to it. 1= The Court of (ppeals correctly ruled that petitioners failure to

file a 2otion for reconsideration a%ainst the assailed Resolution of the +RC rendered its petition for certiorari before the appellate

court as fatally defective.

@e a%ree in the Court of (ppeals findin% that petitioners case does not fall under any of the reco%ni;ed e>ceptions to the filin% of a

2otion for reconsideration, to wit& #1$ when the issue raised is purely of law3 #$ when public interest is involved3 #/$ in case of

ur%ency317

or when the declarations of Titles3 4$ Ta> clearance fro2

the City Treasurer of Pasay City3 5$ (ppraisal report of an accredited appraisal co2pany attestin% to the fair 2ar8et value of

property within ten #1-$ days fro2 receipt of this 0rder. ailure to co2ply therewith will result in the dis2issal of the appeal for

non)perfection thereof .9

n the sa2e 0rder, the +RC warned that failure of the petitioners to co2ply with the conditions would result in the dis2issal of the

appeal for non)perfection thereof. Petitioners were directed to co2ply with its %iven conditions within 1- days fro2 receipt of the 0rder

with a caveat that their failure will result in the dis2issal of the appeal. *ubse


11/102

G.R. No. 168"7! Ju&/ ", 2007

EMILIO E. DIO-NO, ICENTE R. ALCANTARA, ANTONIO (. ERGARA, JR., DANTE M. TONG, JAIME C. MENDO(A, ROMEO MMACAULAY, ROBERTO M. MA'IGLAT, LEANDRO C. ATIEN(A, ROMULO AUINO, JE'U' 'AMIA, GAUDENCIO CAMITDANTE ARAO, ALBERTO MABUGAT, EDGARDO ILLANUEA, JR., FRANCI'CO E'COTO, EDGARDO 'EILLA, FELICITOMACA'AET, )n* JO'E (. TULLO, Petitioners,vs.ON. AN' LEO J. CACDAC, Respondents.

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, see8in% the nullification of the'ecision1 and Resolution of the Court of (ppeals in C()!.R. *P +o. 6/-=1, dated 17 une --4 and 1- une --5, respectively

which dis2issed petitioners Petition for Certiorari and denied their "otion for Reconsideration thereon.

The acts

The irst ine (ssociation of "eralco *upervisory 2ployees #("*$ is a le%iti2ate labor or%ani;ation which is the supervisoryunion of "eralco. Petitioners and private respondents are 2e2bers of ("*.

0n 1 (pril --/, the ("* >ecutive :oard created the Co22ittee on lection #C0"C$ for the conduct of its union electionsscheduled on 7 "ay --/./ The C0"C was co2posed of petitioner 'ante ". Ton% as its chair2an, and petitioners ai2e C"endo;a and Ro2eo ". "acapulay as 2e2bers. *ubsependitures and financial transactions3 andthat a representative fro2 the :ureau of abor Relations #:R$ be desi%nated to act as chair2an of the C0"C in lieu of petitioner'ante ". Ton%.=

0n /- (pril --/, '0)+CR Re%ional 'irector (le> . "araan issued an 0rder 7 directin% '0 personnel to observe the conduct ofthe ("* election on 7 "ay --/.6

0n "ay --/, petitioners filed a Petition 9 with the C0"C see8in% the dis


12/102

0n 7 "ay --/, the C0"C proclai2ed the followin% candidates, includin% so2e of herein petitioners as winners of the elections, towit1 &

)avv$hi)

+(" P0*T0+

2ilio . 'io8no President

icente P. (lcantara >ecutive ice President F >ternal

(ntonio M. er%ara, r. >ecutive ice President F nternal

(lberto . "abu%at ice)President F 0r%ani;in%

Roberto '. "asi%lat, r. ice)President F ducation

eandro C. (tien;a ice)President F Chief *teward

elito C. "acasaet *ecretary

d%ardo R. illanueva (sst. *ecretary

Ro2ulo C. (pulsion of a 2e2ber fro2 ("*, but not to thedis


13/102

there was a denial of due process because the C0"C failed to receive private respondents 'aya, et al.s 2otion foreconsideration of the order of their dispulsionproceedin%s in dis


14/102

The appellate court held that the provision relied upon by the C0"C concerns the dis2issal andGor e>pulsion of union 2e2bers,which power is vested in the ("* >ecutive :oard, and not the C0"C. t affir2ed the findin% of the :R 'irector that theC0"C, in disceptions to the rule that the *upre2e Court is not a trier offacts. They i2plore this Court to 2a8e factual deter2ination anent the conduct of the 7 "ay --/ elections. They also


15/102

(RT. =. :AR(A 0 (:0R R(T0+*. F The :ureau of abor Relations and the abor Relations 'ivisions in the re%ional officesof the 'epart2ent of abor shall have ori%inal and e>clusive authority to act, at their own initiative or upon recept those arisin% fro2 the i2ple2entation or interpretation ocollective bar%ainin% a%ree2ents which shall be the sub?ect of %rievance procedure andGor voluntary arbitration.

The :ureau shall have fifteen #15$ wor8in% days to act on labor cases before it, sub?ect to e>tension by a%ree2ent of the parties.

The a2end2ent to (rticle =, as couched in Republic (ct +o. =715, // which is relied upon by petitioners in ar%uin% that the :R hadbeen divested of its ?urisdiction, si2ply reads, thus&

*ec. 14. The second para%raph of (rticle = of the sa2e Code is li8ewise hereby a2ended to read as follows&

HThe :ureau shall have fifteen #15$ calendar days to act on labor cases before it, sub?ect to e>tension by a%ree2ent of the parties.H

This Court in :autista v. Court of (ppeals, /4 interpretin% (rticle = of the abor Code, was e>plicit in declarin% that the :R has theori%inal and e>clusive ?urisdiction on all inter)union and intra)union conflicts. @e said that since (rticle = of the abor Code hasdeclared that the :R shall have ori%inal and e>clusive authority to act on all inter)union and intra)union conflicts, there should be no2ore doubt as to its ?urisdiction. (s defined, an intra)union conflict would refer to a conflict within or inside a labor union, while an inter)union controversy or dispute is one occurrin% or carried on between or a2on% unions ./5 "ore specifically, an intra)union dispute isdefined under *ection #;$, Rule of the Rules 2ple2entin% :oo8 of the abor Code, vi;&

#;$ Hntra)Anion 'isputeH refers to any conflict between and a2on% union 2e2bers, and includes all disputes or %rievances arisin% fro2

any violation of or disa%ree2ent over any provision of the constitution and by)laws of a union, includin% cases arisin% fro2 charterin% oraffiliation of labor or%ani;ations or fro2 any violation of the ri%hts and conditions of union 2e2bership provided for in the Code.

The controversy in the case at bar is an intra)union dispute. There is no ception to the rule of e>haustion of ad2inistrative re2edies.

n this re%ard, this Court is e2phatic that Hbefore a party is allowed to see8 the intervention of the court, it is a pre)condition that heshould have availed of all the 2eans of ad2inistrative processes afforded hi2. ence, if a re2edy within the ad2inistrative 2achinerycan still be resorted to by %ivin% the ad2inistrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a 2atter that co2es within his ?urisdiction when such re2edy should be e>hausted first before the courts ?udicial power can be sou%ht. The pre2ature invocation ofcourts ?udicial intervention is fatal to ones cause of action.H/=

erily, there are e>ceptions to the applicability of the doctrine./7 (2on% the established e>ceptions are& 1$ when the


16/102

#/-B$ repelled or dis2issed by the >ecutive :oard. They were brou%ht before the C0"C to be dispulsion of a 2e2ber fro2 the union should be after dueprocess and investi%ation, the sa2e to be e>ercised by two)thirds #G/$ vote of the >ecutive :oard for any of the causes 49 2entionedtherein. The un2ista8able directive is that in cases of e>pulsion and dis2issal, due process 2ust be observed as laid down in the C:.

Third, nevertheless, even if we 2aintain a lenient stance and consider the applicability of (rticle , *ection 4#a$#=$ in thedisecutive :oard. +either do we see the observance of the votin% re


17/102

to abrid%e a clear procedural policy established in the ("* C:. f we uphold the C0"C, we are countenancin% a clear caseof denial of due process which is anathe2a to the Constitution of the Philippines which safe%uards the ri%ht to due process.

ifth, fro2 another an%le, the erroneous disecuted between hi2 and petitioner nor was his na2e included in the se2i)2onthly payroll. 0n anuary , 199=, he

was dis2issed fro2 his e2ploy2ent for alle%edly 2isappropriatin% P/6,---.-- which was intended for pay2ent by petitioner of itsvalue added ta> #(T$ to the :ureau of nternal Revenue #:R$. 1

Petitioner on the other hand clai2s that private respondent was not its e2ployee but only the uncle of (2elita "alabed, the owner of

petitioner *t. "artinLs uneral o2e. *o2eti2e in 1995, private respondent, who was for2erly wor8in% as an overseas contract wor8er,

as8ed for financial assistance fro2 the 2other of (2elita. *ince then, as an indication of %ratitude, private respondent voluntarily

helped the 2other of (2elita in overseein% the business.

n anuary 199=, the 2other of (2elita passed away, so the latter then too8 over the 2ana%e2ent of the business. *he then

discovered that there were arrears in the pay2ent of ta>es and other %overn2ent fees, althou%h the records purported to show that the

sa2e were already paid. (2elita then 2ade so2e chan%es in the business operation and private respondent and his wife were no

lon%er allowed to participate in the 2ana%e2ent thereof. (s a conseisted between the parties and, therefore, his office had no ?urisdiction over the case.

+ot satisfied with the said decision, private respondent appealed to the +RC contendin% that the labor arbiter erred #1$ in not %ivin%

credence to the evidence sub2itted by hi23 #$ in holdin% that he wor8ed as a HvolunteerH and not as an e2ployee of *t. "artin uneral

o2e fro2 ebruary =, 1995 to anuary /, 199=, or a period of about one year3 and #/$ in rulin% that there was no e2ployer)e2ployee

relationship between hi2 and petitioner. "

0n une 1/, 1997, the +RC rendered a resolution settin% aside the i%ent and opportune to ree>a2ine the

functional validity and syste2ic practicability of the 2ode of ?udicial review it has lon% adopted and still follows with respect to decisions

of the +RC. The increasin% nu2ber of labor disputes that find their way to this Court and the le%islative chan%es introduced over the

years into the provisions of Presidential 'ecree #*.D.$ +o. 44 #The abor Code of the Philippines and :atas Pa2bansa :l%. #B.*. No.

19 #The udiciary Reor%ani;ation (ct of 196-$ now stridently call for and warrant a reassess2ent of that procedural aspect.

@e prefatorily delve into the le%al history of the +RC. t was first established in the 'epart2ent of abor by P.'. +o. 1 on 0ctober 14

197, and its decisions were e>pressly declared to be appealable to the *ecretary of abor and, ulti2ately, to the President of the

Philippines.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_168475_2007.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_168475_2007.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_168475_2007.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_168475_2007.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_168475_2007.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_168475_2007.html#fnt51


18/102

0n "ay 1, 1974, P.'. +o. 44 enacted the abor Code of the Philippines, the sa2e to ta8e effect si> 2onths after its

pro2ul%ation. 8 Created and re%ulated therein is the present +RC which was attached to the 'epart2ent of abor and 2ploy2ent for

pro%ra2 and policy coordination only. 9 nitially, (rticle /- #now, (rticle /$ thereof also %ranted an a%%rieved party the re2edy o

appeal fro2 the decision of the +RC to the *ecretary of abor, but P.'. +o. 1/91 subseecutory after ten calenda

days fro2 receipt thereof by the parties.

@hen the issue was raised in an early case on the ar%u2ent that this Court has no ?urisdiction to review the decisions of the +RC, and

for2erly of the *ecretary of abor, since there is no le%al provision for appellate review thereof, the Court nevertheless re?ected that

thesis. t held that there is an underlyin% power of the courts to scrutini;e the acts of such a%encies on iliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate ?urisdiction3

#$ >clusive ori%inal ?urisdiction over actions for annul2ent of ?ud%2ents of Re%ional Trial Courts3 and

#/$ >clusive appellate ?urisdiction over all final ?ud%2ents, decisions, resolutions, orders, or awards of Re%ional Trial

Courts and cept those fallin% within the

appellate ?urisdiction of the *upre2e Court in accordance with the Constitution, the provisions of this (ct, and of

subpara%raph #1$ of the third para%raph and subpara%raph #4$ of the fourth para%raph of *ection 17 of the udiciary

(ct of 1946.

The nter2ediate (ppellate Court shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearin%s, receive evidence and

perfor2 any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases fallin% within its ori%inal and appellate

?urisdiction, includin% the power to %rant and conduct new trials or further proceedin%s.

These provisions shall not apply to decisions and interlocutory orders issued under the abor Code of the Philippines

and by the Central :oard of (ssess2ent (ppeals. 1!

*ubseiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate ?urisdiction3

#$ >clusive ori%inal ?urisdiction over actions for annul2ent of ?ud%2ents of Re%ional Trial Courts3 and


19/102

#/$ >clusive appellate ?urisdiction over all final ?ud%2ents, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of Re%ional Trial

Courts and chan%e

Co22ission, the *ocial *ecurity Co22ission, the 2ployees Co2pensation Co22ission and the Civil *ervice

Co22ission, e>cept those fallin% within the appellate ?urisdiction of the *upre2e Court in accordance with the

Constitution, the abor Code of the Philippines under Presidential 'ecree +o. 44, as a2ended, the provisions of this

(ct, and of subpara%raph #1$ of the third para%raph and subpara%raph #4$ of the fourth para%raph of *ection 17 of the

udiciary (ct of 1946.

The Court of (ppeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearin%s, receive evidence and perfor2 any and

all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases fallin% within its ori%inal and appellate ?urisdiction,includin% the power to %rant and conduct new trials or further proceedin%s. Trials or hearin%s in the Court of (ppeals

2ust be continuous and 2ust be co2pleted within, three #/$ 2onths, unless e>tended by the Chief ustice.

t will readily be observed that, aside fro2 the chan%e in the na2e of the lower appellate court, 16 the followin% a2end2ents of the

ori%inal provisions of *ection 9 of :.P. +o. 19 were effected by R.(. +o. 79-, vi,.&

1. The last para%raph which e>cluded its application to the Labor Code of the *hili$$ines and the Central :oard of (ssess2ent (ppeals

was deleted and replaced by a new para%raph %rantin% the Court of (ppeals li2ited powers to conduct trials and hearin%s in cases

within its ?urisdiction.

. The reference to the abor Code in that last para%raph was transposed to para%raph #/$ of the section, such that the ori%ina

e>clusionary clause therein now provides He>cept those fallin% within the appellate ?urisdiction of the *upre2e Court in accordance with

the Constitution, the Labor Code of the *hili$$ines %nder *residential Decree No. --# as aended , the provisions of this (ct, and o

subpara%raph #1$ of the third para%raph and subpara%raph #4$ of the fourth para%raph of *ection 17 of the udiciary (ct of 1946.H

#2phasis supplied$.

/. Contrarily, however, specifically added to and included a2on% the clusive appellate ?urisdiction are the *ecurities and >chan%e Co22ission, the *ocial *ecurity Co22ission, the 2ployees

Co2pensation Co22ission and the Civil *ervice Co22ission.

This, then, brin%s us to a so2ewhat perple>in% i2passN, both in point of purpose and ter2inolo%y. (s earlier e>plained, our 2ode of

?udicial review over decisions of the +RC has for so2e ti2e now been understood to be by a petition for certiorari under Rule =5 of the

Rules of Court. This is, of course, a special ori%inal action li2ited to the resolution of ?urisdictional issues, that is, lac8 or e>cess of

?urisdiction and, in al2ost all cases that have been brou%ht to us, %rave abuse of discretion a2ountin% to lac8 of ?urisdiction.

t will, however, be noted that para%raph #/$, *ection 9 of :.P. +o. 19 now %rants e>clusive a$$ellate ?urisdiction to the Court o

(ppeals over all final ad?udications of the Re%ional Trial Courts and the cept, a2on% others, Hthose fallin% within the a$$ellate ?urisdiction of the *upre2e Court in accordance with . . . the abor

Code of the Philippines under Presidential 'ecree +o. 44, as a2ended, . . . .H This would necessarily contradict what has been ruled

and said all alon% that appeal does not lie fro2 decisions of the +RC. 17 Det, under such e>ceptin% clause literally construed, the

appeal fro2 the +RC cannot be brou%ht to the Court of (ppeals, but to this Court by necessary i2plication.

The sa2e e>ceptive clause further confuses the situation by declarin% that the Court of (ppeals has no appellate ?urisdiction over

decisions fallin% within the appellate ?urisdiction of the *upre2e Court in accordance with the Constitution, the provisions of :.P. +o.

19, and those specified cases in *ection 17 of the udiciary (ct of 1946. These cases can, of course, be properly e>cluded fro2 the

e>clusive appellate ?urisdiction of the Court of (ppeals. owever, because of the afore2entioned a2end2ent by transposition, also

supposedly e>cluded are cases fallin% within the appellate ?urisdiction of the *upre2e Court in accordance "ith the Labor Code . This is

illo%ical and i2practicable, and Con%ress could not have intended that procedural %affe, since there are no cases in the abor Code the

decisions, resolutions, orders or awards wherein are within the a$$ellate ?urisdiction of the *upre2e Court or of any other court for tha

2atter.

( review of the le%islative records on the antecedents of R.(. +o. 79- persuades us that there 2ay have been an oversi%ht in the

course of the deliberations on the said (ct or an i2precision in the ter2inolo%y used therein. n fine, Con%ress did intend to provide for

?udicial review of the ad?udications of the +RC in labor cases by the *upre2e Court, but there was an inaccuracy in the ter2 used fo

the intended 2ode of review. This conclusion which we have reluctantly but prudently arrived at has been drawn fro2 the

considerations e>tant in the records of Con%ress, 2ore particularly on *enate :ill +o. 1495 and the Reference Co22ittee Report on *

+o. 1495G. +o. 1-45. 18


20/102

n sponsorin% *enate :ill +o. 1495, *enator Raul *. Roco delivered his sponsorship speech 19 fro2 which we reproduce the followin%

e>cerpts&

The udiciary Reor%ani;ation (ct, "r. President, :atas Pa2bansa :l%. 19, reor%ani;ed the Court of (ppeals and a

the sa2e ti2e e>panded its ?urisdiction and powers. (2on% others, its appellate ?urisdiction was e>panded to cover

not only final ?ud%2ent of Re%ional Trial Courts, but also all final ?ud%2ent#s$, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards

of cept those fallin% within the appellate

?urisdiction of the *upre2e Court in accordance with the Constitution, the provisions of :P :l%. 19 and o

subpara%raph 1 of the third para%raph and subpara%raph 4 of *ection 17 of the udiciary (ct of 1946.

"r. President, the purpose of the law is to ease the "or/load of the S%$ree Co%rt b! the transfer of soe of its

b%rden of revie" of fact%al iss%es to the Co%rt of A$$eals. 0o"ever# "hatever benefits that can be derived fro the

e'$ansion of the a$$ellate 1%risdiction of the Co%rt of A$$eals "as c%t short b! the last $aragra$h of Section 2 of

Batas *abansa Blg. )2 "hich e'cl%des fro its coverage the 3decisions and interloc%tor! orders iss%ed %nder the

Labor Code of the *hili$$ines and b! the Central Board of Assessent A$$eals.

(2on% the hi%hest nu2ber of cases that are brou%ht up to the *upre2e Court are labor cases. ence, *enate :i

+o. 1495 see8s to eliinate the e'ce$tions en%erated in Section 2 and, additionally, e>tends the covera%e of

appellate review of the Court of (ppeals in the decision#s$ of the *ecurities and >chan%e Co22ission, the *ocia

*ecurity Co22ission, and the 2ployees Co2pensation Co22ission to reduce the nu2ber of cases elevated to the

*upre2e Court. #2phases and corrections ours$

>>> >>> >>>

*enate :ill +o. 1495 authored by our distin%uished Collea%ue fro2 a%una provides the ideal situation of drastically

reducin% the wor8load of the *upre2e Court without deprivin% the liti%ants of the privile%e of review by an appellate

tribunal.

n closin%, allow 2e to pressly vested on it now Hto deter2ine whether or

not there has been a %rave abuse of discretion a2ountin% to lac8 of ?urisdiction on the part of any

branch or instru2entality of the !overn2ent.

@e used to have 5--,--- cases pendin% all over the land, "r. President. t has been cut down to /--,--- cases

so2e five years a%o. understand we are now bac8 to 4--,--- cases. Anless we distribute the wor8 of the appellate

courts, we shall continue to 2ount and add to the nu2ber of cases pendin%.

n view of the fore%oin%, "r. President, and by virtue of all the reasons we have sub2itted, the Co22ittee on ustice

and u2an Ri%hts re>> >>> >>>

*urprisin%ly, however, in a subse


21/102

*enator Roco. 0n the sa2e pa%e, we 2ove that lines 5 to /- be deleted. This was also discussed with our

Collea%ues in the ouse of Representatives and as we understand it, as approved in the ouse, this was also

deleted, "r. President.

The President. s there any ob?ectionO #Silence$ earin% none, the a2end2ent is approved.

*enator Roco. There are no further Co22ittee a2end2ents, "r. President.

*enator Ro2ulo. "r. President, 2ove that we close the period of Co22ittee a2end2ents.

The President. s there any ob?ectionO #Silence$ earin% none, the a2end2ent is approved. #2phasis supplied$.

>>> >>> >>>

Thereafter, since there were no individual a2end2ents, *enate :ill +o. 1495 was passed on second readin% and bein% a certified bill,

its unani2ous approval on third readin% followed. 21 The Conference Co22ittee Report on *enate :ill +o. 1495 and ouse :ill +o

1-45, havin% theretofore been approved by the ouse of Representatives, the sa2e was li8ewise approved by the *enate on

ebruary -, 1995, 22 inclusive of the dubious for2ulation on appeals to the *upre2e Court earlier discussed.

The Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that ever since appeals fro2 the +RC to the *upre2e Court were eli2inated, the

le%islative intend2ent was that the special civil action of certiorari was and still is the proper vehicle for ?udicial review of decisions o

the +RC. The use of the word HappealH in relation thereto and in the instances we have noted could have been a la$s%s $l%ae because appeals by certiorari and the ori%inal action for certiorari are both 2odes of ?udicial review addressed to the appellate

courts. The i2portant distinction between the2, however, and with which the Court is particularly concerned here is that the special civil

action of certiorari is within the concurrent ori%inal ?urisdiction of this Court and the Court of (ppeals3 2 whereas to indul%e in the

assu2ption that appeals by certiorari to the *upre2e Court are allowed would not subserve, but would subvert, the intention of

Con%ress as e>pressed in the sponsorship speech on *enate :ill +o. 1495.

ncidentally, it was noted by the sponsor therein that so2e


22/102

therein. This practice 2ust be stopped, not only because of the i2position upon the precious ti2e of this Court but

also because of the inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the ad?udication of the case which often

has to be re2anded or referred to the lower court as the proper foru2 under the rules of procedure, or as better

eceptional and co2pellin% circu2stances ?ustify avail2ent of a re2edy within and callin% for the e>ercise of

our pri2ary ?urisdiction.

@R0R, under the fore%oin% pre2ises, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby R"(+'', and all pertinent records thereof

ordered to be 0R@(R'', to the Court of (ppeals for appropriate action and disposition consistent with the views and rulin% hereinset forth, without pronounce2ent as to costs.

*0 0R'R'.

G.R. No. 18!220 Ju&/ 27, 2009

LAGUNA METT' CORORATION, Petitioner,vs.

COURT OF AEAL', ARIE' C. CAALAM )n* GERALDINE E'GUERRA, Respondents.

This petition arose fro2 a labor case filed by private respondents (ries C. Caala2 and !eraldine s%uerra a%ainst petitioner a%una

"etts Corporation #"C$.1 The labor arbiter decided in favor of private respondents and found that they were ille%ally dis2issed by

"C. 0n appeal, however, the +ational abor Relations Co22ission #+RC$ reversed the decision of the labor arbiter in a decision

dated ebruary 1, --6. Private respondents 2otion for reconsideration was denied in a resolution dated (pril /-, --6.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt1


23/102

Counsel for private respondents received the (pril /-, --6 resolution of the +RC on "ay =, --6. 0n uly 5, --6, he filed a

2otion for e>tension of ti2e to file petition for certiorari under Rule =5 of the Rules of Court. The 2otion alle%ed that, fo

reasons/ stated therein, the petition could not be filed in the Court of (ppeals within the prescribed =-)day period. 4 Thus, a 15)day

e>tension period was prayed for .5

n a resolution dated (u%ust 7, --6,= the Court of (ppeals %ranted the 2otion and %ave private respondents a non)e>tendible period of

15 days within which to file their petition for certiorari. "C 2oved for the reconsideration of the said resolution clai2in% that e>tensions

of ti2e to file a petition for certiorari are no lon%er allowed under *ection 4, Rule =5 of the Rules of Court, as a2ended by (.". +o. -7)

7)1)*C dated 'ece2ber 4, --7.7 This was denied in a resolution dated 0ctober , --6. (ccordin% to the appellate court, while the

a2end2ent of the third para%raph of *ection 4, Rule =5 ad2ittedly calls for stricter application to discoura%e the filin% of unwarranted2otions for e>tension of ti2e, it did not strip the Court of (ppeals of the discretionary power to %rant a 2otion for e>tension in

e>ceptional cases to serve the ends of ?ustice.

(%%rieved, "C now assails the resolutions dated (u%ust 7, --6 and 0ctober , --6 of the Court of (ppeals in this petition fo

certiorari under Rule =5 of the Rules of Court. t contends that the Court of (ppeals co22itted %rave abuse of discretion when i

%ranted private respondents 2otion for e>tension of ti2e to file petition for certiorari as the Court of (ppeals had no power to %ran

so2ethin% that had already been e>pressly deleted fro2 the rules.

@e a%ree.

Rules of procedure 2ust be faithfully co2plied with and should not be discarded with the 2ere e>pediency of clai2in% substantia

2erit.6 (s a corollary, rules prescribin% the ti2e for doin% specific acts or for ta8in% certain proceedin%s are considered )5o&u3e&/%n*%#en)5&e to prevent needless delays and to orderly and pro2ptly dischar%e ?udicial business. :y their very nature, these rules arere%arded as 2andatory.9

n De Los Santos v. Co%rt of A$$eals,1- we ruled&

*ection 4 of Rule =5 prescribes a period of =- days within which to file a petition for certiorari. Te 60*)/ #e$%o* % *ee4e*$e)on)5&e )n* u%%en3 3%4e o$ ) #)$3/ 3o 4u&& o:e$ )n* 3o #$e#)$e ) #e3%3%on )e$3%n; ;$):e )5ue o *%$e3%on 5/ ) &oty #=-$ days fro2 notice of the ?ud%2ent or

resolution. n case a 2otion for reconsideration or new trial is ti2ely filed, whether such 2otion is rety #=-$ day

period shall be counted fro2 notice of the denial of said 2otion.

The petition shall be filed in the *upre2e Court or, if it relates to the acts or o2issions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer

or person, in the Re%ional Trial Court e>ercisin% ?urisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the *upre2e Court. t 2ay also be

filed in the Court of (ppeals whether or not the sa2e is in aid of its appellate ?urisdiction, or in the *andi%anbayan if it is in aid of its

appellate ?urisdiction. f it involves the acts or o2issions of a ty #=-$ days fro2 notice of the ?ud%2ent or

resolution. n case a 2otion for reconsideration or new trial is ti2ely filed, whether such 2otion is rety #=-$ day

period shall be counted fro2 the notice of the denial of the 2otion.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt12


24/102

f the petition relates to an act or an o2ission of a 2unicipal trial court or of a corporation, a board, an officer or a person, it shall be filed

with the Re%ional Trial Court e>ercisin% ?urisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the *upre2e Court. t 2ay also be filed in the

Court of (ppeals or with the *andi%anbayan, whether or not the sa2e is in aid of the courts appellate ?urisdiction. lavv$hil f the petition

involves an act or an o2ission of a clusively with the

Co22ission on lections, in aid of its appellate ?urisdiction.

(s a rule, an a2end2ent by the deletion of certain words or phrases indicates an intention to chan%e its 2eanin%. t is presu2ed thatthe deletion would not have been 2ade if there had been no intention to effect a chan%e in the 2eanin% of the law or rule. The

a2ended law or rule should accordin%ly be %iven a construction different fro2 that previous to its a2end2ent. 1/lavv$hl

f the Court intended to retain the authority of the proper courts to %rant e>tensions under *ection 4 of Rule =5, the para%raph providin%

for such authority would have been preserved. The re2oval of the said para%raph under the a2end2ent by (.". +o. -7)7)1)*C of

*ection 4, Rule =5 si2ply 2eant that there can no lon%er be any e>tension of the =-)day period within which to file a petition for

certiorari.

The rationale for the a2end2ents under (.". +o. -7)7)1)*C is essentially to prevent the use #or abuse$ of the petition for certiorar

under Rule =5 to delay a case or even defeat the ends of ?ustice. 'eletin% the para%raph allowin% e>tensions to file petition on

co2pellin% %rounds did away with the filin% of such 2otions. (s the Rule now stands, petitions for certiorari 2ust be filed 3$%3&/ tension of ti2e to file petition for certiorari, the Court of (ppeals disre%arded (.". +o

-7)7)1)*C. The action a2ounted to a 2odification, if not outri%ht reversal, by the Court of (ppeals of (.". +o. -7)7)1)*C. n so

doin%, the Court of (ppeals arro%ated to itself a power it did not possess, a power that only this Court 2ay e>ercise. 14 or this reason

the challen%ed resolutions dated (u%ust 7, --6 and 0ctober , --6 were invalid as they were rendered by the Court of (ppeals in

e>cess of its ?urisdiction.

ven assu2in% that the Court of (ppeals retained the discretion to %rant e>tensions of ti2e to file a petition for certiorari for co2pellin%

reasons, the reasons proffered by private respondents counsel did not


25/102

G.R. No. 172799 Ju&/ 6, 2007

JON'ON > JON'ON ?IL'.@, NC., JAN''EN ARMACEUTICA, ANDOR RAFAEL BE'A, Petitioners,vs.JON'ON OFFICE > 'ALE' UNIONFEDERATION OF FREE +OR-ER' ?FF+@, MA. JE'U'A BON'OL )n* RI(ALINDAIRONDO, Respondents.

The instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure see8s the reversal of the 'ecision 1 dated/1 anuary --= and Resolution dated / "ay --= of the Court of (ppeals in C()!.R. *P +o. 6=9=/. The Court of (ppeals 'ecisionaffir2ed two resolutions of the +ational abor Relations Co22ission #+RC$ directin% the reinstate2ent of respondents "a. esusa

:onsol and Ri;alinda irondo to their for2er positions in ohnson ohnson #Phils.$, nc. while the Resolution denied petitioners2otion for reconsideration.

The instant petition ori%inated fro2 the co2plaint for ille%al dis2issal filed by respondents "a. esusa :onsol and Ri;alinda irondoa%ainst petitioners ohnson ohnson #Phils.$, nc. and anssen Phar2aceutica, one of the for2ers divisions. 0n 11 +ove2ber 1999,the abor (rbiter dis2issed the co2plaint, pro2ptin% respondents to elevate the 2atter to the +RC. 0n 14 'ece2ber --1, the +RCrendered a Resolution,/ 2odifyin% the decision of the abor (rbiter. The +RC ruled that the violations of co2pany procedureco22itted by respondents did not constitute serious 2isconduct or willful disobedience warrantin% their dis2issal3 hence, respondentswere entitled to reinstate2ent.

The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads in part&

@R0R, pre2ises considered, the instant (ppeal is hereby P(RT(D !R(+T'. (ccordin%ly, the 'ecision appealed fro2 ishereby "0'' to the effect co2plainants)appellants Iprivate respondentsJ were ille%ally dis2issed3 that they are entitled to

reinstate2ent to their respective for2er positionIsJ without loss of seniority ri%hts and privile%es but without any bac8wa%es or in thealternative, to pay2ent of separation pay each e 4 yrs. > Q 2o. P4,---.--

. 1/th "onth Pay 1,---.--

*ervice ncentive eave Pay&P1,--- > 1 G =5 P/94.5 > 5 days 1,97.=-

/. (ttorneys ees&P1,---.-- S 1,97.=- > 1-B 1,/97.=

P/9,/=9.6=

!R(+' T0T( P111,-6.16

(s re%ards the other issues, the 'ecision is *A*T(+'.



26/102

*0 0R'R'.4

Petitioners sou%ht partial reconsideration but the +RC denied the 2otion in a Resolution dated 11 ebruary --. +either partyappealed fro2 the resolution decision of the +RC within the re%le2entary period. The Resolution dated 14 'ece2ber --1 beca2efinal and e>ecutory.

0n 5 "arch --, petitioners filed a "otion to *et Case for Conference before the +RC, 2anifestin% their willin%ness to payrespondents separation pay and other 2onetary awards.5 (ccordin% to petitioners, in the conferences called by the +RC, none of therespondents were in attendance. The abor (rbiter even su%%ested to petitioners to prepare the chec8 pay2ent. nstead, in a 2otiondated 16 'ece2ber --, respondents sou%ht the issuance of a writ of e>ecution to i2ple2ent the Resolution dated 14 'ece2ber

--1 and prayed for their i22ediate reinstate2ent to their for2er positions.=

Petitioners opposed the 2otion.7

(t the conference held on /1 "arch --4, petitioners reiterated their intention to satisfy respondents 2onetary award but the latterrefused and insisted on their reinstate2ent. Thereafter, petitioners filed a "anifestation and "otion,6 ar%uin% that the 14 'ece2be--1 Resolution %ranted petitioners the ri%ht to choose between the pay2ent of separation pay and the reinstate2ent of respondentsbased on the findin% that while their ter2ination was ille%al, respondents were not entirely faultless Has they did not follow the e>actprocedure in the perfor2ance of their duties.H Petitioners also clai2ed that reinstate2ent was no lon%er feasible in view of the strainedrelations between the parties.9

0n 16 une --4, the +RC issued a Resolution,1- which directed the reinstate2ent of respondents pursuant to the 14 'ece2ber --1Resolution. The +RC reco%ni;ed respondents ri%ht to choose between reinstate2ent and separation pay and disre%arded petitionersclai2 of Hstrained relations.H11 Petitioners 2otion for reconsideration was denied in the Resolution dated 6 uly --4.1

(%%rieved, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of (ppeals. They contended that respondents "otion for the ssuance

of a @rit of >ecution had the effect of alterin% the 14 'ece2ber --1 Resolution, which had already beco2e final and e>ecutory andwhich clearly %ranted petitioners the option to either reinstate respondents to their for2er positions or to pay the 2onetary award.Petitioners also ar%ued a%ainst respondents reinstate2ent in view of the strained relations between the parties.

0n /1 anuary --=, the Court of (ppeals rendered the assailed 'ecision dis2issin% the petition for certiorari and affir2in% theresolutions of the +RC dated 16 une --4 and 6 uly --4. 0n / "ay --=, the Court of (ppeals denied petitioners 2otion forreconsideration.

ence, the instant petition, i2putin% the followin% errors on the Court of (ppeals&

. T 0+0R(: C0ART 0 (PP(* '*R!(R'' T TR( "P0RT (+' *PRT 0 T +RC*R*0AT0+ '(T' 14 'C":R --1 @C !* T0 PTT0+R* T KCA* 0PT0+ @TR T0R+*T(T +''A( R*P0+'+T* T0 TR 0R"R P0*T0+* 0R T0 !R(+T T" *P(R(T0+ P(D +A 0 R+*T(T"+T.

. T 0+0R(: C0ART 0 (PP(* C0+TR('CT' T* 0@+ +'+! T(T T 'C*0+ 0 T +RC'(T' 14 'C":R --1 * (R('D +( (+' KCAT0RD @+ T "0'' T TR( "P0RT 0 *(''C*0+ :D 0'+! T(T T 0PT0+ T0 C00* :T@+ R+*T(T"+T 0R *P(R(T0+ P(D :0+!*T0 T +''A( R*P0+'+T*.

. T 0+0R(: C0ART 0 (PP(* *0A' ( RA' T(T T R+*T(T"+T 0 +''A(R*P0+'+T* T0 TR 0R"R P0*T0+* * +0 0+!R P0**: + @ 0 T (CT T(T TR(T0+* :T@+ T P(RT* (' :C0" *0 *TR(+' T(T R+*T(T"+T @ +0 0+!R : T0T :*T +TR*T* IsicJ 0 ( C0+CR+'.1/

Petitioners contend that the intent of the 14 'ece2ber --1 Resolution was to %rant petitioners the option to reinstate respondents totheir for2er positions without the pay2ent of bac8wa%es, or in the alternative, to pay the2 separation pay, because the dispositive

portion of the Resolution was directed toward or addressed to petitioners, who are le%ally obli%ed to i2ple2ent the rulin%. (ccordin% topetitioners, the +RC erred and 2odified the Resolution dated 14 'ece2ber --1, which had beco2e final and e>ecutory, when itstated in its 16 une --4 Resolution that respondents have the ri%ht to choose between their reinstate2ent and %ettin% paid the2onetary award when no such cate%orical pronounce2ent can be %athered fro2 the 14 'ece2ber --1 Resolution.

The petition has no 2erit.

@ell)entrenched is the rule that an ille%ally dis2issed e2ployee is entitled to reinstate2ent as a 2atter of ri%ht. 0ver the years,however, case law developed that where reinstate2ent is not feasible, e>pedient or practical, as where reinstate2ent would onlye>acerbate the tension and strained relations between the parties, or where the relationship between the e2ployer and e2ployee hasbeen unduly strained by reason of their irreconcilable differences, particularly where the ille%ally dis2issed e2ployee held a 2ana%erialor 8ey position in the co2pany, it would be 2ore prudent to order pay2ent of separation pay instead of reinstate2ent. 14 n other wordsthe pay2ent of separation co2pensation in lie% of the reinstate2ent of an e2ployee who was ille%ally dis2issed fro2 wor8 shall be

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_172799_2007.html#fnt14


27/102

allowed if and only if the e2ployer can prove the e>istence of circu2stances showin% that reinstate2ent will no lon%er be for the 2utualbenefit of the e2ployer and e2ployee.

The +RC Resolution dated 14 'ece2ber --1 e>pressly reco%ni;ed respondents ri%ht to reinstate2ent in view of the ille%ality of theirter2ination. Thus, the dispositive portion of said resolution ordered respondents reinstate2ent without, however, the pay2ent ofbac8wa%es as a pri2ary relief.

Petitioners are 2ista8en in holdin% that they have the prero%ative to choose whether to reinstate respondents to their for2er positionsor to ?ust pay their 2onetary award. +either party can clai2 that it has the cate%orical ri%ht to choose between reinstate2ent and thepay2ent of the 2onetary award. Alti2ately, the +RC has the authority to e>ecute its ?ud%2ent and to settle any issue that 2ay arise

pertainin% to the 2anner or details of i2ple2entin% its ?ud%2ent.

n the instant case, althou%h the opposin% parties yielded to the ?ud%2ent of the +RC and did not any2ore elevate the labor dispute tothe appellate court, they are now at odds as to how the 14 'ece2ber --1 Resolution should be i2ple2ented. Thus, the +RCproperly e>ercised its authority to resolve the controversy when it issued the Resolution dated 16 une --4, where it cate%oricallyordered the reinstate2ent of respondents to their for2er positions, in consonance with its earlier rulin%. The +RC upheld thecontinuin% pri2acy of reinstate2ent as the available relief and 2ade short shrift of petitioners avowal that separation pay should beawarded in lieu of reinstate2ent. ffectively, the +RC and the Court of (ppeals disre%arded petitioners clai2 that the relation betweenthe parties was so strained that only the pay2ent of the 2onetary award was feasible under the circu2stances. The Court defers, as itshould, to the co22on findin% of the +RC and Court of (ppeals since the issue of the e>istence of strained relations between theparties is factual in nature.

The subseecutory ?ud%2ent is when a court or, in the instantcase, the +RC, e>ecutes an award that is not a2on% those stated in the dispositive portion of the ?ud%2ent. That is not the casehere.)avv$hi)

That the dispositive portion of the 14 'ece2ber --1 Resolution contained the phrase Hor in the alternative, Iprivate respondents areentitledJ to pay2ent of separation pay > > >H does not 2ean that petitioners were %ranted the option to pay the separation pay in lie% oreinstatin% respondents. "ore than anythin% else, the state2ent was in the nature of an affir2ation of the state of the law rather than anad?udication of a ri%ht in favor of petitioners.

"oreover, a readin% of a courts ?ud%2ent 2ust not be confined to the dispositive portion alone3 rather, it should be 2eanin%fullyconstrued in unani2ity with the ratio decidendi thereof to %rasp the true intent and 2eanin% of a decision.15 ( readin% of the Resolutiondated 14 'ece2ber --1 shows that after findin% that respondents ter2ination was ille%al, the +RC held that they were entitled toreinstate2ent, thus&

avin% been ille%ally dis2issed as co2prehensively discussed above, co2plainants)appellants are nor2ally entitled to reinstate2ent totheir respective for2er positions without loss of seniority ri%hts and privile%es and to pay2ent of bac8wa%es and other benefits.

owever, inas2uch, as they are not entirely faultless as they did not follow e>act procedures in the perfor2ance of their duties in theinstant case, li8e payin% for 2edicines i22ediately upon their bein% pulled out of (lstar, not later on, and payin% with chec8s belon%in%to their custo2ers, not with their personal chec8s, Co2plainants)(ppellants should thus be reinstated to their for2er position withoutloss of seniority ri%hts and previli%es IsicJ but without any bac8wa%es whatsoever or in the alternative, should thus be paid separationpay each epressly reco%ni;ed respondents entitle2ent to reinstate2ent because of the ille%ality of their dis2issal, althou%hthey were no lon%er entitled to bac8wa%es. (s found by the +RC, respondents violated certain co2pany policies, the effect of whichwas the forfeiture of the award of bac8wa%es.

Petitioners ar%ue that the afore2entioned findin% of the +RC that respondents were not entirely bla2eless %rants the2 the ri%ht tochoose between reinstatin% respondents or %ivin% the2 separation pay.

+othin% in the body of the 14 'ece2ber --1 Resolution supports petitioners conclusion. (s already stated, the findin% of the +RCthat respondents were not entirely faultless 2erely caused the2 the forfeiture of their bac8wa%es and did not deny the2 reinstate2entto their for2er positions.

@R0R, the instant petition for review on certiorari is '+' and the 'ecision dated /1 anuary --= and Resolution dated /"ay --= of the Court of (ppeals in C()!.R. *P +o. 6=9=/ are (R"'. Costs a%ainst petitioners. *0 0R'R'.

G.R. No. 17!66 Au;u3 11, 2008



28/102

JIL MARINE, INC. )n*o$ JE'U' CANDAA )n* NORMAN 'IING 'ERICE', petitionersvs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATION' COMMI''ION )n* +ARLITO E. DUMALAOG, respondents.

@arlito . 'u2alao% #respondent$, who served as coo8 aboard vessels plyin% overseas, filed on "arch 4, -- before the +ational

abor Relations Co22ission #+RC$ a pro)for2a co2plaint1a%ainst petitioners 2annin% a%ency )Phil "arine, nc. #)Phil$, its then

president esus Candava, and its forei%n principal +or2an *hippin% *ervices for unpaid 2oney clai2s, 2oral and e>e2plary

da2a%es, and attorneys fees.

Respondent thereafter filed two a2ended pro for2a co2plaints prayin% for the award of overti2e pay, vacation leave pay, sic8 leavepay, and disabilityG2edical benefits, he havin%, by his clai2, contracted enlar%e2ent of the heart and severe thyroid enlar%e2ent in the

dischar%e of his duties as coo8 which rendered hi2 disabled.

Respondents total clai2 a%ainst petitioners was P6=4,/4/./- plus P117,557.=- representin% interest and P195,96.== representin%

attorneys fees./

:y 'ecision4 of (u%ust 9, --/, abor (rbiter e *uperiaso)Cellan dis2issed respondents co2plaint for lac8 of 2erit.

0n appeal,5 the +RC, by 'ecision of *epte2ber 7, --4, reversed the abor (rbiters decision and awarded A*U5-,---.-- disability

benefit to respondent. t dis2issed respondents other clai2s, however, for lac8 of basis or ?urisdiction.= Petitioners "otion fo

Reconsideration7 havin% been denied by the +RC,6 they filed a petition for certiorar i9 before the Court of (ppeals.

:y Resolution1- of *epte2ber , --5, the Court of (ppeals dis2issed petitioners petition for, inter alia, failure to attach to the petition

all 2aterial docu2ents, and for defective verification and certification. Petitioners "otion for Reconsideration of the appellate courts

Resolution was denied311hence, they filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.

'urin% the pendency of the case before this Court, respondent, a%ainst the advice of his counsel, entered into a co2pro2ise

a%ree2ent with petitioners. e thereupon si%ned a Vuitclai2 and Release subscribed and sworn to before the abor (rbiter .1

0n "ay 6, --7, petitioners filed before this Court a "anifestation 1/ dated "ay 7, --7 infor2in% that, inter alia, they and responden

had for%ed an a2icable settle2ent.

0n uly , --7, respondents counsel filed before this Court a Co22ent and 0pposition #to Petitioners "anifestation of "ay 7,

--7$14 interposin% no ob?ection to the dis2issal of the petition but ob?ectin% to Hthe absolutionH of petitioners fro2 payin% responden

the total a2ount of ifty Thousand A* 'ollars #A*U5-,---.--$ or appro>i2ately P,/--,---.--, the a2ount awarded by the +RC, he

addin% that&

There bein% already a pay2ent of P45-,---.--, and invo8in% the doctrine of #)$en #)3$%)e, we pray then ItoJ this onorable*upre2e Court that the said a2ount be deducted fro2 the I+RCJ ?ud%2ent award of A*U5-,---.--, o

appro>i2ately P ,/--,---.--, and petit ioners be further2ore ordered to pay in favor of herein respondent ItheJ re2ainin%

balance thereof.

> > > >15 #2phasis in the ori%inal3 underscorin% supplied$

Respondents counsel also filed before this Court, $%r$ortedl! on behalf of res$ondent , a Co22ent1=on the present petition.

The parties havin% for%ed a co2pro2ise a%ree2ent as respondent in fact has e>ecuted a Vuitclai2 and Release, the Court dis2isses

the petition.

(rticle 7 of the abor Code provides&

(ny co2pro2ise settle2ent, includin% those involvin% labor standard laws, :o&un3)$%&/ );$ee* u#on by the parties with theassistance of the 'epart2ent of abor, shall be final and bindin% upon the parties. The +ational abor Relations Co22ission

or any court shall not assu2e ?urisdiction over issues involved therein e>cept in case of non)co2pliance thereof or if there

is $ria facie evidence that the settle2ent was obtained throu%h $)u*, 4%$e#$een3)3%on, o$ oe$%on. #2phasis andunderscorin% supplied$

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_175366_2008.html#fnt16


29/102

n Ola!bar v. NLRC#17 the Court, reco%ni;in% the conclusiveness of co2pro2ise settle2ents as a 2eans t

Documents

labor relation case 29-49 fulltext