ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 107660. January 2, 1995 : RAMON C. LOZON, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Second Division) and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 101545 January 3, 1995 : HERMENEGILDO M. MAGSUCI vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995 : LEOUEL SANTOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115147 January 4, 1995 : GEORGE I. RIVERA vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117568 January 4, 1995 : ROLANDO B. ANGELES vs. DIRECTOR OF NEW BILIBID PRISON

  • G.R. Nos. 109642-43 January 5, 1995 : LESLIE W. ESPINO vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108172-73 January 9, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. CONRADO B. LUCAS

  • G.R. Nos. 59550 & 60636 January 11, 1995 : EDILBERTO NOEL, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106087 January 11, 1995 : ROLITO T. GO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117442-43 January 11, 1995 : FEM'S ELEGANCE LODGING HOUSE, ET AL. vs. LEON P. MURILLO

  • G.R. No. 98332 January 16, 1995 : MINERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHIL. vs. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91283 January 17, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ALFREDO ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109704 January 17, 1995 : ALFREDO B. FELIX vs. BRIGIDA BUENASEDA

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1088 January 18, 1995 : TERESITA ARMI R. GUILLERMO vs. JOSE C. REYES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 104497 January 18, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ALEX RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105007 January 18, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. REYNALDO CORPUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111222 January 18, 1995 : CITIBANK, N.A. vs. JOSE C. GATCHALIAN

  • G.R. No. 111288 January 18, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RENE NUESTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112529 January 18, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. GREGORIO CURA , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91492 January 19, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. VALENTINO GAMIAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103800 January 19, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. AUGUSTO CHING

  • G.R. No. 113517 January 19, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. FLORESTAN D. NITCHA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-920 January 20, 1995 : AGRIPINO S. BELEN vs. SANTIAGO E. SORIANO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-972 January 20, 1995 : ETERIA T. TAN vs. MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES

  • Adm. Case No. 1647 January 20, 1995 : ELENA VDA. DE ECO vs. BENJAMIN RAMIREZ

  • CBD Case No. 176 January 20, 1995 : SALLY D. BONGALONTA vs. PABLITO M. CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 86305-06 January 20, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JOSE DAQUIPIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96943-45 January 20, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ALEX ABITONA

  • G.R. No. 101229 January 20, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. REO DALIMPAPAS PAJARES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104576 January 20, 1995 : MARIANO L. DEL MUNDO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106843 January 20, 1995 : POCKETBELL PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108358 January 20, 1995 : COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96073 January 23, 1995 : REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96652 January 25, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. NESTOR G. CASCALLA

  • G.R. No. 101302 January 25, 1995 : JAIME C. DACANAY vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107152 January 25, 1995 : MANUEL M. ALLEJE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109113 January 25, 1995 : CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF THE MWSS vs. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109616 January 25, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. MARTINA P. MACARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110290 January 25, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JAIME "JIMMY" AGUSTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111238 January 25, 1995 : ADELFA PROPERTIES, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115932 January 25, 1995 : SPS JOSE B. TIONGCO AND LETICIA M. TIONGCO vs. SEVERIANO C. AGUILA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1208 January 26, 1995 : JACINTO MAPPALA vs. CRISPULO A. NUÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 84096 January 26, 1995 : RAUL H. SESBRENO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108592 January 26, 1995 : NILO MERCADO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 110107 January 26, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. DOLORES C. LORENZO

  • G.R. No. 111805 January 26, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ROBERTO R. CAJAMBAB

  • G.R. No. 115044 January 27, 1995 : ALFREDO S. LIM vs. FELIPE G. PACQUING

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-813 January 30, 1995 : RAMON ABAD vs. ANTONIO BELEN

  • G.R. No. L-56290 January 30, 1995 : GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99358 January 30, 1995 : DJUMANTAN vs. ANDREA D. DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111290 January 30, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. REX TABAO

  • G.R. No. 98196 January 31, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ELEUTERIO ADONIS

  • G.R. No. 113458 January 31, 1995 : JOSE MARCELO, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107660 January 2, 1995 - RAMON C. LOZON v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101545 January 3, 1995 - HERMENEGILDO M. MAGSUCI v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995 - LEOUEL SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115147 January 4, 1995 - GEORGE I. RIVERA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117568 January 4, 1995 - ROLANDO B. ANGELES v. DIRECTOR OF NEW BILIBID PRISON

  • G.R. Nos. 109642-43 January 5, 1995 - LESLIE W. ESPINO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108172-73 January 9, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO B. LUCAS

  • G.R. Nos. 59550 & 60636 January 11, 1995 - EDILBERTO NOEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106087 January 11, 1995 - ROLITO T. GO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117442-43 January 11, 1995 - FEM’S ELEGANCE LODGING HOUSE, ET AL. v. LEON P. MURILLO

  • G.R. No. 98332 January 16, 1995 - MINERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHIL. v. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91283 January 17, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109704 January 17, 1995 - ALFREDO B. FELIX v. BRIGIDA BUENASEDA

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1088 January 18, 1995 - TERESITA ARMI R. GUILLERMO v. JOSE C. REYES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 104497 January 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105007 January 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO CORPUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111222 January 18, 1995 - CITIBANK, N.A. v. JOSE C. GATCHALIAN

  • G.R. No. 111288 January 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE NUESTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112529 January 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO CURA , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91492 January 19, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTINO GAMIAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103800 January 19, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AUGUSTO CHING

  • G.R. No. 113517 January 19, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORESTAN D. NITCHA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-920 January 20, 1995 - AGRIPINO S. BELEN v. SANTIAGO E. SORIANO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-972 January 20, 1995 - ETERIA T. TAN v. MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES

  • Adm. Case No. 1647 January 20, 1995 - ELENA VDA. DE ECO v. BENJAMIN RAMIREZ

  • CBD Case No. 176 January 20, 1995 - SALLY D. BONGALONTA v. PABLITO M. CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 86305-06 January 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE DAQUIPIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96943-45 January 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX ABITONA

  • G.R. No. 101229 January 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REO DALIMPAPAS PAJARES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104576 January 20, 1995 - MARIANO L. DEL MUNDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106843 January 20, 1995 - POCKETBELL PHILIPPINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108358 January 20, 1995 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96073 January 23, 1995 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96652 January 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR G. CASCALLA

  • G.R. No. 101302 January 25, 1995 - JAIME C. DACANAY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107152 January 25, 1995 - MANUEL M. ALLEJE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109113 January 25, 1995 - CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF THE MWSS v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109616 January 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTINA P. MACARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110290 January 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME "JIMMY" AGUSTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111238 January 25, 1995 - ADELFA PROPERTIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115932 January 25, 1995 - SPS JOSE B. TIONGCO AND LETICIA M. TIONGCO v. SEVERIANO C. AGUILA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1208 January 26, 1995 - JACINTO MAPPALA v. CRISPULO A. NUÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 84096 January 26, 1995 - RAUL H. SESBRENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108592 January 26, 1995 - NILO MERCADO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 110107 January 26, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOLORES C. LORENZO

  • G.R. No. 111805 January 26, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO R. CAJAMBAB

  • G.R. No. 115044 January 27, 1995 - ALFREDO S. LIM v. FELIPE G. PACQUING

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-813 January 30, 1995 - RAMON ABAD v. ANTONIO BELEN

  • G.R. No. L-56290 January 30, 1995 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99358 January 30, 1995 - DJUMANTAN v. ANDREA D. DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111290 January 30, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REX TABAO

  • G.R. No. 98196 January 31, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO ADONIS

  • G.R. No. 113458 January 31, 1995 - JOSE MARCELO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. Nos. 117442-43   January 11, 1995 - FEM’S ELEGANCE LODGING HOUSE, ET AL. v. LEON P. MURILLO

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. Nos. 117442-43. January 11, 1995.]

    FEM’S ELEGANCE LODGING HOUSE, FENITHA SAAVEDRA and IRIES ANTHONY SAAVEDRA, Petitioners, v. The Honorable LEON P. MURILLO, Labor Arbiter, Regional Arbitration Branch, Region X, National Labor Relations Commission, Cagayan de Oro City, ALFONSO GALLETO, GEORGE VEDAD, ROLAND PANTONIAL, REYNALDO DELAORAO, FELICISIMO BAQUILID, CECILIO SAJOL, ANNABEL CASTRO, BENJAMIN CABRERA, RHONDEL PADERANGA, ZENAIDA GUTIB, AIDA IMBAT and MARIA GRACE ATUEL, Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    1. REMEDIAL LAW; LABOR CASES; FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, FATAL. — We dismiss the petition for failure of petitioners to exhaust their remedies, particularly in seeking redress from the NLRC prior to the filing of the instant petition. Article 223 of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides that decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter are appealable to the NLRC. Thus, petitioners should have first appealed the questioned order of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC, and not to this Court. Their omission is fatal to their cause.

    2. ID.; ID.; TECHNICAL RULES OF PROCEDURE, NOT BINDING IN CASE AT BAR; NO DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS. — The delay of private respondents in the submission of their position paper is a procedural flaw, and the admission thereof is within the discretion of the Labor Arbiter. Well-settled is the rule that technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases, for procedural lapses may be disregarded in the interest of substantial justice, particularly where labor matters are concerned. The failure to submit a position paper on time is not one of the grounds for the dismissal of a complaint in labor cases. It cannot therefore be invoked by petitioners to declare private respondents as non-suited. This stance is in accord with Article 4 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, which resolves that all doubts in the interpretation of the law and its implementing rules and regulations shall be construed in favor of labor. Needless to state, our jurisprudence is rich with decisions adhering to the State’s basic policy of extending protection to labor where conflicting interests between labor and management exist. Petitioners cannot claim that they were denied due process inasmuch as they were able to file their position paper. The proper party to invoke due process would have been private respondents, had their position paper been expunged from the records for mere technicality. Since petitioners assert that their defense is meritorious, it is to their best interest that the cases be resolved on the merits. In this manner, the righteousness of their cause can be vindicated.

    PADILLA, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. REMEDIAL LAW; LABOR CASES; FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, FATAL. — Petitioners did not exhaust their remedies in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) before coming to this Court. It is clear from Article 223 of the Labor Code that decisions, awards or orders of the labor arbiter are appealable to the National Labor Relations Commission. The proper remedy which petitioners should have taken was to appeal to the NLRC the labor arbiter’s order denying their motion to dismiss and motion to expunge private respondents’ position paper. The present petition is therefore clearly premature, a procedural flaw and should on this score be dismissed.

    2. ID.; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; CERTIORARI; NOT PROPER IN CASE AT BAR. — If this Court were to entertain appeals from orders of labor arbiters, even in the form of a petition for certiorari for alleged grave abuse of discretion under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, we will be opening the flood gates to petitions for certiorari against orders (including interlocutory ones) of labor arbiters when the clear intent of the law is to subject the decisions, awards and orders of labor arbiters to review by the NLRC before they are brought to this Court.


    R E S O L U T I O N


    QUIASON, J.:


    This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court with temporary restraining order to reverse and set aside the Order dated September 21, 1994 of the Labor Arbiter in the NLRC RAB X Cases Nos. 10-04-00232 (-00233)-94.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

    Petitioner FEM’s Elegance Lodging House is a business enterprise engaged in providing lodging accommodations. It is owned by petitioner Fenitha Saavedra and managed by petitioner Iries Anthony Saavedra. Private respondents are former employees of petitioners whose services were terminated between March and April, 1994.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Sometime after their dismissal from the employment of petitioners, private respondents separately filed two cases against petitioners before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Regional Arbitration Branch No. X, Cagayan de Oro City, docketed as NLRC RAB X Cases Nos. 10-04-00232 (-00233)-94. Private respondents sought for unpaid benefits such as minimum wage, overtime pay, rest day pay, holiday pay, full thirteenth-month pay and separation pay (Rollo, pp. 40-42).

    On May 31, 1994, a pre-arbitration conference of the cases took place before the Labor Arbiter. It was agreed therein: (1) that both labor cases should be consolidated; and (2) that the parties would file their respective position papers within thirty days from said date or until June 30, 1994, after which the cases would be deemed submitted for resolution (Rollo, p. 14).

    On June 29, petitioners filed their position paper. On July 7, they inquired from the NLRC whether private respondents had filed their position paper. The receiving clerk of the NLRC confirmed that as of said date private respondents had not yet filed their position paper.

    The following events then transpired: on July 8, petitioners filed a Motion to dismiss for failure of private respondents to file their position paper within the agreed period (Rollo, p. 38); on July 15, private respondents belatedly filed their position paper; on July 18, petitioners filed a Motion to Expunge [private respondents’] Position Paper from the records of the case (Rollo, p. 45); and on August 23, the Labor Arbiter issued a notice of clarificatory hearing, which was set for September 7 (Rollo, p. 47). Prior to the hearing, petitioners filed a Motion to Resolve [petitioners’] Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Expunge [private respondents’] Position Paper from the Records of the Case (Rollo, p. 48).

    On September 21, the Labor Arbiter issued the order denying the motions filed by petitioners. He held that a fifteen-day delay in filing the position paper was not unreasonable considering that the substantive rights of litigants should not be sacrificed by technicality. He cited Article 4 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, which provides that all doubts in the interpretation thereof shall be resolved in favor of labor. He said that even under Section 15, Rule 5 of the Revised Rules of Court, a delay in the filing of a position paper is not a ground for a motion to dismiss under the principle of exclusio unius est excludio alterius (Rollo, pp. 51-52).chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Hence, the present petition where petitioners charged the Labor Arbiter with grave abuse of discretion for issuing the order in contravention of Section 3, Rule V of The New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, Said section provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Submission of Position Papers/Memorandum. — . . . Unless otherwise requested in writing by both parties, the Labor Arbiter shall direct both parties to submit simultaneously their position papers/memorandum with the supporting documents and affidavits within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of the last conference, with proof of having furnished each other with copies thereof" (Emphasis supplied).

    Petitioners claimed that they were denied due process and that the Labor Arbiter should have cited private respondents in contempt for their failure to comply with their agreement in the pre-arbitration conference.chanrobles law library : red

    We dismiss the petition for failure of petitioners to exhaust their remedies, particularly in seeking redress from the NLRC prior to the filing of the instant petition. Article 223 of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides that decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter are appealable to the NLRC. Thus, petitioners should have first appealed the questioned order of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC, and not to this Court. Their omission is fatal to their cause.

    However, even if the petition was given due course, we see no merit in petitioners’ arguments. The delay of private respondents in the submission of their position paper is a procedural flaw, and the admission thereof is within the discretion of the Labor Arbiter.

    Well-settled is the rule that technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases, for procedural lapses may be disregarded in the interest of substantial justice, particularly where labor matters are concerned (Ranara v. National Labor Relations Commission, 212 SCRA 631 [1992]).

    The failure to submit a position paper on time is not one of the grounds for the dismissal of a complaint in labor cases (The New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, Rule V, Section 15). It cannot therefore be invoked by petitioners to declare private respondents as non-suited. This stance is in accord with Article 4 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, which resolves that all doubts in the interpretation of the law and its implementing rules and regulations shall be construed in favor of labor. Needless to state, our jurisprudence is rich with decisions adhering to the State’s basic policy of extending protection to Labor where conflicting interests between labor and management exist (Aquino v. National Labor Relations Commission, 206 SCRA 118 [1992]).chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Petitioners cannot claim that they were denied due process inasmuch as they were able to file their position paper. The proper party to invoke due process would have been private respondents, had their position paper been expunged from the records for mere technicality. Since petitioners assert that their defense is meritorious, it is to their best interest that the cases be resolved on the merits. In this manner, the righteousness of their cause can be vindicated.

    IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petition for lack of merit.

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    PADILLA, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The petition in this case should be dismissed because petitioners did not exhaust their remedies in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) before coming to this Court.

    It is clear from Article 223 of the Labor Code that decisions, awards or orders of the labor arbiter are appealable to the National Labor Relations Commission. The proper remedy which petitioners should have taken was to appeal to the NLRC the labor arbiter’s order denying their motion to dismiss and motion to expunge private respondents’ position paper. The present petition is therefore clearly premature, a procedural flaw and should on this score be dismissed.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    If this Court were to entertain appeals from orders of labor arbiters, even in the form of a petition for certiorari for alleged grave abuse of discretion under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, we will be opening the flood gates to petitions for certiorari against orders (including interlocutory ones) of labor arbiters when the clear intent of the law is to subject the decisions, awards and orders of labor arbiters to review by the NLRC before they are brought to this Court.

    G.R. Nos. 117442-43   January 11, 1995 - FEM’S ELEGANCE LODGING HOUSE, ET AL. v. LEON P. MURILLO


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED