Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > July 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 77827 July 5, 1989 - MACARIO D. ZAPATA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 77827. July 5, 1989.]

MACARIO D. ZAPATA, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PEDRO T. SICCION, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI WILL NOT LIE ABSENT A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. — A careful perusal of the records of this case yields the irresistible conclusion that respondent NLRC was correct in holding that private respondent is entitled to and should be granted his aforesaid separation pay and overtime pay. It is evident, therefore, that respondent commission did not fall into error in the exercise of its discretion, much less did it commit a grave abuse thereof. There is nothing arbitrary, capricious, or oppressive, as to amount to lack of jurisdiction, in the decision of said public Respondent. Said decision being based on substantial evidence with no infirmity or circumstance in the factual findings which would detract from the conclusiveness thereof, We are without authority to amend or otherwise revoke the same. Whatever flaw could conceivably be attributed to respondent NLRC would, at most, be a mere error of judgment which the Court has consistently ruled, because Rule 65 so mandates, cannot be a proper subject of the special civil action for certiorari. Consequently, the extraordinary writ prayed for will not lie.

2. LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, A PREREQUISITE BEFORE ANY FURTHER REMEDY MAY BE PURSUED. — Fatal to this action is petitioner’s failure to move for the reconsideration of the assailed decision on the dubious pretext that it will be a mere rehash of the arguments and issues previously raised in his position paper, but which stratagem conveniently skirts as a consequence the reglementary period therefor, especially if the same has already expired. The implementing rules of respondent NLRC are unequivocal in requiring that a motion for reconsideration of the order, resolution, or decision of respondent commission should be seasonably filed as a precondition for pursuing any further or subsequent remedy, otherwise the said order, resolution, or decision shall become final and executory after ten calendar days from receipt thereof.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; RATIONALE. — The rationale therefor is that the law intends to afford the NLRC an opportunity to rectify such errors or mistakes it may have lapsed into before resort to the courts of justice can be had. This merely adopts the rule that the function of a motion for reconsideration is to point out to the court the error that it may have committed and to give it a chance to correct itself. Petitioner cannot, on its bare and self-serving representation that reconsideration is unnecessary, unilaterally disregard what the law requires and deny respondent NLRC its right to review its pronouncements before being haled to court to account therefor. On policy considerations, such prerequisite would provide an expeditious termination to labor disputes and assist in the decongestion of court dockets by obviating improvident and unnecessary recourse to judicial proceedings. The present case exemplifies the very contingency sought to be, and which could have been, avoided by the observance of said rules.


D E C I S I O N


REGALADO, J.:


The antecedent facts of this case, as chronologized by the Solicitor General and based on the findings of respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC, for brevity), are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Private respondent Pedro T. Siccion started working as a laborer since December 1958 with Celilu Manufacturing Corporation, owned and managed by herein petitioner, Macario D. Zapata.

"2. In 1960, when Celilu transferred to Cainta, Rizal, private respondent was promoted to inspector, determining the quality of the finished wire products until Celilu closed shop in 1976.

"3. However, private respondent continued working with the petitioner in the manufacture of wire products and also as security guard in 1978 when the regular security guard was dismissed.

"4. On September 15, 1983, he was informed of the loss of a heavy-duty Singer Sewing machine for which he was advised as terminated by September 30, 1983 with termination pay, which the petitioner complied with although he was not given the promised termination pay.

"5. This prompted the private respondent to file on October 11, 1983 the instant complaint against the petitioner with the National Capital Region of the Ministry of Labor, for illegal dismissal and overtime pay.

"6. After the parties had filed their respective position papers and supporting documentary evidence, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on December 28, 1984, the dispositive portion of which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, respondent Macario D. Zapata should be, as he is hereby directed to pay complainant Pedro T. Siccion the amount of Two Thousand (2,000.00) Pesos as separation pay. The complaint for overtime pay is dismissed without prejudice for lack of basis.’

"7. However, on appeal by private respondent, the respondent Commission promulgated on February 4, 1987 a Decision modifying the afore-quoted Labor Arbiter’s decision, by ordering the petitioner to pay the private respondent a separation pay at the rate of one month salary for every year of service starting from 1958 up to 1983, and overtime pay from the year 1978 up to 1983 . . ." 1

Hence, this petition for certiorari to set aside said decision of respondent commission. 2

Petitioner avers that public respondent committed a grave abuse of discretion in modifying the labor arbiter’s decision by granting separation pay at the rate of one month salary for every year of service for the period from 1958 to 1983, and granting overtime pay from 1978 to 1983.

We find this petition meritless both substantively and procedurally.

A careful perusal of the records of this case yields the irresistible conclusion that respondent NLRC was correct in holding that private respondent is entitled to and should be granted his aforesaid separation pay and overtime pay.

Respondent commission correctly justified such award for separation pay from 1958 to 1983, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is not disputed that complainant was previously employed in 1958 as laborer of Celilu Manufacturing Corporation, a company owned and managed by herein respondent Macario D. Zapata. Evidence submitted showed that Celilu closed shop in 1976. Complainant, however, continued working with respondent Macario D. Zapata in the manufacture of wire products and as security guard when the regular security guard was dismissed in 1978 . . .

"As for the cause of complainant’s dismissal, respondent accused the former of having stolen some properties of the latter. This accusation has no factual basis. In respondent’s own position paper, Zapata alleges that one Singer sewing machine, 20 pieces of G.I. pipes and 22 rolls of canvass were missing. However, in his affidavit, he enumerates the loss of one sewing machine, one adding machine and one chair. These contradictory assertion (sic) would reflect respondent’s doubtful and weak averments. Inferentially, it could be deduced that the alleged pilferage is based merely on assumption of fact without substantial evidence in support thereof. On this score, the dismissal in question is illegal for which complainant is entitled to reinstatement with backwages. Considering, however, complainant’s prayer is one for payment of separation pay, the same should be, as it is hereby ordained to be computed from 1958 up to the date of his dismissal." (Italics supplied). 3

The grant of overtime pay was likewise not without basis, for as categorically found by said public respondent —

"Complainant further claims that the Arbiter committed an error in concluding that he (complainant) failed to ventillate (sic) his claims for overtime compensation. Accordingly, the Arbiter dismissed the claims without prejudice. However, it is noted that complainant categorically stated in his sworn statement (sinumpaang salaysay) that from 1978 he acted as security guard from 5:00 a.m. up to 8:00 in the evening. This specific allegation was never denied nor controverted by the respondent who merely posed the defense of complainant’s househelper employment status." 4

It is evident, therefore, that respondent commission did not fall into error in the exercise of its discretion, much less did it commit a grave abuse thereof. There is nothing arbitrary, capricious, or oppressive, as to amount to lack of jurisdiction, in the decision of said public Respondent. Said decision being based on substantial evidence with no infirmity or circumstance in the factual findings which would detract from the conclusiveness thereof, We are without authority to amend or otherwise revoke the same. Whatever flaw could conceivably be attributed to respondent NLRC would, at most, be a mere error of judgment which the Court has consistently ruled, because Rule 65 so mandates, cannot be a proper subject of the special civil action for certiorari. Consequently, the extraordinary writ prayed for will not lie.

Furthermore, fatal to this action is petitioner’s failure to move for the reconsideration of the assailed decision on the dubious pretext that it will be a mere rehash of the arguments and issues previously raised in his position paper, but which stratagem conveniently skirts as a consequence the reglementary period therefor, especially if the same has already expired. The implementing rules of respondent NLRC are unequivocal in requiring that a motion for reconsideration of the order, resolution, or decision of respondent commission should be seasonably filed as a precondition for pursuing any further or subsequent remedy, otherwise the said order, resolution, or decision shall become final and executory after ten calendar days from receipt thereof. 5 Obviously, the rationale therefor is that the law intends to afford the NLRC an opportunity to rectify such errors or mistakes it may have lapsed into before resort to the courts of justice can be had. This merely adopts the rule that the function of a motion for reconsideration is to point out to the court the error that it may have committed and to give it a chance to correct itself. 6

Petitioner cannot, on its bare and self-serving representation that reconsideration is unnecessary, unilaterally disregard what the law requires and deny respondent NLRC its right to review its pronouncements before being haled to court to account therefor. On policy considerations, such prerequisite would provide an expeditious termination to labor disputes and assist in the decongestion of court dockets by obviating improvident and unnecessary recourse to judicial proceedings. The present case exemplifies the very contingency sought to be, and which could have been, avoided by the observance of said rules.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED and the decision of respondent National Labor Relations Commission is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. This decision is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairman), Paras, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Comment, 1-3; Rollo, 51-53.

2. NLRC-NCR-Case No. 10-4534-83; penned by Presiding Commissioner Daniel M. Lucas, Jr., with the concurrence of Commissioners Domingo M. Zapanta and Oscar N. Abella.

3. Rollo, 22-23.

4. Ibid., 23.

5. Sec. 9, Rule X and Sec. 2, Rule XI, New Rules of the NLRC.

6. Gonzales v. Santos, 1 SCRA 1151 (1961); Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc. Et. Al. v. Court of Industrial Relations, Et Al., 8 SCRA 447 (1963); Guerra Enterprises Company, Inc. v. Court of First Instance of Lanao del Sur, Et Al., 32 SCRA 314 (1970); Phil. Advertising Counsellors Inc. v. Revilla, Et Al., 52 SCRA 246 (1973); Siy v. Court of Appeals, Et. Al. 138 SCRA 536 (1985).




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 42449 July 5, 1989 - C & C COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 45322 July 5, 1989 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. CFI OF ILOILO BRANCH III, ILOILO CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58494 July 5, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. VICENTE T. LEOGARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59075 July 5, 1989 - MERCEDES P. GUASCH v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 59241-44 July 5, 1989 - PEDRO TANDOC, ET AL. v. RICARDO P. RESULTAN

  • G.R. No. 69210 July 5, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO LAYUSO

  • G.R. No. 77827 July 5, 1989 - MACARIO D. ZAPATA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78011 July 5, 1989 - RURAL BANK OF SARIAYA, INC. v. BENJAMIN YACON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78282 July 5, 1989 - BRIGIDO RAMOS, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78585 July 5, 1989 - JOSE ANTONIO MAPA v. JOKER ARROYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80141 July 5, 1989 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL. v. PURA FERRER CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80500 July 5, 1989 - ROBUSTA AGRO MARINE PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL. v. BALTAZAR GOROMBALEM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80544 July 5, 1989 - ROSEMARIE M. LEE v. JOSEFINA CRUZ RODIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82113 July 5, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO CAÑETE

  • G.R. No. 82737 July 5, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AUREO G. ROJO

  • G.R. No. 84975 July 5, 1989 - ZENAIDA GALINDEZ, ET AL. v. RURAL BANK OF LLANERA, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85595 July 5, 1989 - MARIA ARCIAGA VDA. DE UMALI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 28508-9 July 7, 1989 - ESSO STANDARD EASTERN, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 70037 July 7, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFISTA BRAGAT VDA. DE CABANGAHAN

  • G.R. No. 70403 July 7, 1989 - SANTIAGO SYJUCO, INC. v. JOSE P. CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84362 July 7, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 85215 July 7, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN AYSON

  • A.C. No. 1892 July 7, 1989 - LUIS V. ARTIAGA, JR. v. ENRIQUE C. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. Nos. 82405-06 July 10, 1989 - BANQUE DE L’INDOCHINE ET DE SUEZ, ET AL. v. RAMON AM. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 83551 July 11, 1989 - RODOLFO B. ALBANO v. RAINERIO O. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78763 July 12, 1989 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84113 July 12, 1989 - FEDERICO N. TRISTE, JR. v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-87-141 July 12, 1989 - ASSOCIATION OF COURT EMPLOYEES OF PANABO, DAVAO v. MARIANO C. TUPAS

  • G.R. No. 47258 July 13, 1989 - ANTONIO R. BANZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72764 July 13, 1989 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78596 July 13, 1989 - IN RE: LUCIEN TRAN VAN NGHIA v. RAMON J. LIWAG

  • G.R. No. 78742 July 14, 1989 - ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL. v. SEC. OF AGRARIAN REFORM

  • G.R. No. 72827 July 18, 1989 - LUCIA EUROPA v. HUNTER GARMENTS MFG. (PHIL.) INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74170 July 18, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 43886 July 19, 1989 - IRENE DINO v. AUGUSTO L. VALENCIA

  • G.R. No. 54216 July 19, 1989 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. GREGORIO G. PINEDA

  • G.R. No. 64935 July 19, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHARLIE R. REPE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71499 July 19, 1989 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74658 July 19, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMETERIO VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75704 July 19, 1989 - RUBBERWORLD (PHILS.), INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 77133 July 19, 1989 - MARCIANO BANDOY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77266 July 19, 1989 - ARTHUR PAJUNAR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78755 July 19, 1989 - GOLDEN FARMS, INC. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79913 July 19, 1989 - EDUARDO TALLA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81269 July 19, 1989 - LIBERTY COMMERCIAL CENTER, INC. v. PURA FERRER CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82260 July 19, 1989 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 52081 July 21, 1989 - LUCIANA M. DE ALINO, ET AL. v. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54243 July 21, 1989 - INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56481 July 21, 1989 - ANTONIO SORIAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59805 July 21, 1989 - LEONILA J. LICUANAN v. RICARDO D. DIAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68786 July 21, 1989 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73678 July 21, 1989 - GUILLERMO CORTES, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 47981 July 24, 1989 - JUAN V. SABINOSA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72282 July 24, 1989 - ANACLETO DE JESUS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 86587-93 July 25, 1989 - LOLITO G. APARICIO v. ERMELINDO C. ANDAL

  • G.R. Nos. 74226-27 July 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIZPAH R. REYES

  • G.R. No. 81817 July 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARD ALDANA

  • G.R. No. 82489 July 27, 1989 - UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80479 July 28, 1989 - AGUSTINA LIQUETTE TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84197 July 28, 1989 - PIONEER INSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85279 July 28, 1989 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85285 July 28, 1989 - DANVILLE MARITIME, INC. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 47924 July 31, 1989 - MARCIANO ASUNCION v. GREGORIO G. PINEDA

  • G.R. No. 67173 July 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN ESPERA

  • G.R. No. 67610 July 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGELINA R. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 70246 July 31, 1989 - FIRST INTEGRATED BONDING & INSURANCE CO., INC., ET AL. v. ASAALI S. ISNANI

  • G.R. No. 75277 July 31, 1989 - JOSE A. IBARRIENTOS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78148 July 31, 1989 - APOLINARIO BATACLAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78170 July 31, 1989 - LUIS TIRSO RIVILLA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79827 July 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMALIA RESTERIO-ANDRADE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82823-24 July 31, 1989 - AGRO COMM’L. SECURITY SERVICES AGENCY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83414 July 31, 1989 - TONY CAUDAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85692 July 31, 1989 - ANGELITO F. MAGLALANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.