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
 

   
August-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 112354 August 4, 1997 - LUVIMINO P. CASUELA v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115903 August 4, 1997 - ROBERTO CORDENILLO v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106194 August 7, 1997 - SANTIAGO LAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117188 August 7, 1997 - LOYOLA GRAND VILLAS HOMEOWNERS ASSN. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121275 August 7, 1997 - CENTRO ESCOLAR UNIVERSITY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122391 August 7, 1997 - FELIPE L. LAODENIO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1303 August 11, 1997 - GLADDY S. BERNABE v. SALVADOR A. MEMORACION

  • G.R. No. 95089 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOMEDES FABRO

  • G.R. No. 97898 August 11, 1997 - FLORANTE F. MANACOP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99355 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO S. SALAZAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108234 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FIDEL RAGAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109617 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE SION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111824 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIZA D. BAGUS

  • G.R. No. 120988 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSEMARIE N. DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 121210 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RIZAL SAGUCIO

  • G.R. No. 121983 August 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANILLO BAXINELA

  • G.R. No. 123240 August 11, 1997 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107307 August 11, 1997 - PNCC v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110129 August 12, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDELCIANO AMACA

  • G.R. No. 110397 August 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO A. BINAMIRA

  • G.R. Nos. 116307-10 August 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO BACALTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127255 August 14, 1997 - JOKER P. ARROYO, ET AL. v. JOSE DE VENECIA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1219 August 15, 1997 - COURT OF APPEALS v. MARCELO ESCALANTE

  • G.R. No. 121466 August 15, 1997 - PMI COLLEGES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 109645 & 112564 August 15, 1997 - ORTIGAS & CO. LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. TIRSO VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110399 August 15, 1997 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. SUPERVISORS, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 111066-67 August 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VILLAMOR ORDOÑA

  • G.R. No. 112180 August 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MILDRED N. VILLAS

  • G.R. No. 115844 August 15, 1997 - CESAR G. VIOLA v. RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117398 August 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES DABBAY

  • G.R. No. 120064 August 15, 1997 - FERDINAND PALOMARES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121377 August 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH GELERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123290 August 15, 1997 - AURORA DE LEON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1234 August 18, 1997 - CRISTETA ORFILA v. RONA S. QUIROZ

  • G.R. No. 95523 August 18, 1997 - REYNALDO R. GONZALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119252 August 18, 1997 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL. v. APOLINARIO B. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124520 August 18, 1997 - NILO CHA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1350 August 18, 1997 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. DELIA H. PANGANIBAN

  • G.R. No. 95449 August 18, 1997 - PHILIPPINE-SINGAPORE TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98107 August 18, 1997 - BENJAMIN C. JUCO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101832 August 18, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE O. TABALESMA

  • G.R. Nos. 113245-47 August 18, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO DISIPULO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115527 August 18, 1997 - ROSSELINI L. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117682 August 18, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVINO SALARZA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 118815 August 18, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANITA MELGAR-MERCADER

  • G.R. No. 119288 August 18, 1997 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119368 August 18, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO ERARDO

  • G.R. No. 119696 August 18, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAZUL GUIAMIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120256 August 18, 1997 - HERMITO CABCABAN v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123276 August 18, 1997 - MARIO TIU, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108611 August 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE ASTO, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 93-9-1237-RTC August 21, 1997 - LOSS OF COURT EXHIBITS AT RTC, BR. 136, MAKATI CITY

  • Adm. Matter No. 96-11-402-RTC August 21, 1997 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

  • Adm. Matter No. 97-2-12-MTC August 21, 1997 - ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA TO PRISONER NICANOR DE GUZMAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 94723 August 21, 1997 - KAREN E. SALVACION, ET AL. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96176 August 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZENAIDA ISLA

  • G.R. No. 110249 August 21, 1997 - ALFREDO TANO, ET AL. v. SALVADOR P. SOCRATES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101829 August 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO ZAMORA

  • G.R. No. 102018 August 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY GABAYRON

  • G.R. No. 103959 August 21, 1997 - REGALADO SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108183-85 August 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONE PALOMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112513 August 21, 1997 - EDGAR R. DEL CASTILLO v. CSC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113032 August 21, 1997 - WESTERN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY INC., ET AL. v. RICARDO T. SALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116294 August 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO CHAVEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 116602-03 August 21, 1997 - CARMELITA SARAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120691 August 21, 1997 - BIONIC HEAVY EQUIPMENTS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123053 August 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO L. CARIZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123492 August 21, 1997 - DANILO A. YAP v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126749 August 21, 1997 - ERIBERTO M. SUSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127896 August 21, 1997 - ADRIANO A. ARELLANO, JR. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109578 August 27, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALDO FABRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97642 August 29, 1997 - AVON INSURANCE PLC, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123581 August 29, 1997 - RODRIGO B. BANGAYAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115581 August 29, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VACITA LATURA JONES

  • G.R. Nos. 116744-47 August 29, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO PANES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119332 August 29, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACK V. SORREL

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 121275   August 7, 1997 - CENTRO ESCOLAR UNIVERSITY v. NLRC, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 121275. August 7, 1997.]

    CENTRO ESCOLAR UNIVERSITY, Petitioner, v. FIRST DIVISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MARIA C. ALBA, Respondents.

    Conrado R. Ayuyao & Associates for Petitioner.

    Rodrigo O. Celicious for Private Respondent.

    SYNOPSIS


    Private respondent was the Administrator of the Health Services Department of petitioner. Due to a written complaint signed by eight of her staff citing her domineering behavior, private respondent was suspended and thereafter her services were terminated by petitioner. Private respondent then filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal and for money claims.

    The Labor Arbiter in a decision dismissed the complaint finding that private respondent was dismissed for just cause with due process and therefore is not entitled to her money claims except in the amount of P4,200.00. The judgment was without prejudice to her retirement benefits.

    The NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter finding private respondent’s dismissal as illegal. It ordered petitioner to reinstate private respondent, to pay her money claims, damages and attorney s fees.

    On certiorari, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as the decision of the NLRC had already attained finality. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the NLRC’s decision was filed beyond the ten (10)-day period provided by law. Since the decision is indisputably final and executory, its merits can no longer be examined to determine the existence of grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.

    Decision affirmed.


    SYLLABUS


    1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR RELATIONS; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION DECISION; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; PERIOD; NON-COMPLIANCE RENDERS THE DECISION FINAL AND EXECUTORY. — Section 14, Rule VII of the New Rules of NLRC specifically provides that the aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of any order, resolution, or decision of the NLRC. In this case, petitioner mailed its motion for reconsideration well beyond the ten-day period provided by law. A motion for reconsideration that is filed out of time renders the decision sought to be reconsidered final and executory. Consequently, the decision of the NLRC in the case at bar had attained finality after the expiration of the reglementary period within which a motion for reconsideration may be filed.

    2. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; CERTIORARI; REQUIRES PRIOR FILING OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. — Before certiorari under Rule 65 can be availed of, a motion for reconsideration must first be filed. A motion for reconsideration is indispensable to enable the tribunal, board or office, in this case, the NLRC, to pass upon and correct its mistakes without the intervention of a higher court. Failure to file a motion for reconsideration is a fatal infirmity.


    D E C I S I O N


    ROMERO, J.:


    This is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which seeks to set aside the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission dated September 16, 1994 in NLRC Case No. 004668-93 entitled "Maria C. Alba v. Centro Escolar University," which reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter by finding herein petitioner liable for illegal dismissal. cdtech

    Private respondent Maria C. Alba was hired by petitioner Centro Escolar University in July 1971 as Clinic Nurse of the Health Services Department. Seven years later, she was promoted as Clinic Nurse-in-Charge, and on December 6, 1979, she was appointed as Administrative Assistant/Senior Nurse. Six months later, she was promoted to Administrative Officer. On July 1, 1984, she was appointed Administrator of the Health Services Department. She occupied this position until she was notified of her dismissal on September 18, 1991.

    On December 5, 1990, private respondent was placed under preventive suspension by petitioner as a result of a written complaint signed by eight of her staff citing her domineering behaviour. 1 Private respondent filed her answer on December 10, 1990. 2

    The investigating committee submitted its report to the Acting President of petitioner university recommending that the clinic be headed by a medical officer. 3 On January 18, 1991 private respondent met with three of petitioner university’s officials who later advised her to go on leave of absence without pay from January 16, 1991 to July 6, 1991 and thereafter go on retirement.

    On January 31, 1991, private respondent once again met with CEU’s Acting President. The latter reiterated her suggestion that private respondent should retire. On February 4, 1991, she was directed to go on leave without pay from January 16, 1991 to July 6, 1991, otherwise she would be considered AWOL.

    When private respondent reported back to work on July 18, 1991, she was given a retirement form. She refused to accomplish said form and instead requested the university’s Chairman of the Board to convene an administrative council. 4 In a letter dated August 5, 1991, petitioner extended her preventive suspension until the administrative council convenes. 5

    On September 18, 1991, private respondent was given a notice of termination. 6

    Private respondent filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, non-payment of salary, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, and allowances and moral damages.

    On November 27, 1992, Labor Arbiter Ramon Valentin Reyes rendered his decision 7 dismissing the complaint upon finding that private respondent was dismissed for just cause with due process, and therefore not entitled to money claims except in the amount of P4,200.00. The judgment was without prejudice to private respondent’s retirement benefits. 8

    On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and ordered private respondent’s reinstatement. Respondent Commission’s decision dated September 16, 1994 has the following dispositive portion:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The dismissal of the complainant as of December 6, 1990 is hereby declared illegal, and respondent CENTRO ESCOLAR UNIVERSITY is hereby ordered to:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. Reinstate the complainant MARIA C. ALBA to her former position without loss of seniority rights;

    2. Pay the complainant MARIA C. ALBA her backwages from the time she was dismissed on December 6, 1990 until she is actually reinstated, computed at P14,000.00 a month (basic salary plus regular allowance) amounting, as of September 6, 1994 to P616,000.00;

    3. Pay the complainant MARIA C. ALBA moral damages of P75,000.00 and exemplary damages of P75,000.00; and

    4. Attorney’s fees of 10% of the aggregate awards.

    SO ORDERED." 9

    Petitioner received a copy of the decision of NLRC on October 27, 1994. 10 On November 26, 1994, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of said decision by registered mail.

    No action was taken on this motion because it was never received by respondent Commission as evidenced by a Certification issued by the Record Officer of the Receiving Section, National Labor Relations Commission. 11 In fact, since the decision was considered final and executory, a writ of execution was issued on February 23, 1995. 12

    The instant petition is hereby dismissed.

    Section 14, Rule VII of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC specifically provides that the aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of any order, resolution, or decision of the NLRC. In this case, petitioner received a copy of the decision on September 16, 1994 giving it until September 27, 1994 to submit its motion for reconsideration. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration mailed on November 26, 1994 was filed well beyond the ten-day period provided by law. A motion for reconsideration that is filed out of time renders the decision sought to be reconsidered final and executory. 13 Consequently, the decision of the NLRC in the case at bar had attained finality after the expiration of the reglementary period within which a motion for reconsideration may be filed.

    Time and again, this Court has reiterated in several cases that before certiorari under Rule 65 can be availed of, a motion for reconsideration must first be filed. A motion for reconsideration is indispensable to enable the tribunal, board, or office, in this case, the NLRC, to pass upon and correct its mistakes without the intervention of a higher court. 14

    In the case of Building Care Corporation v. NLRC , 15 we held that the failure to file a motion for reconsideration is a fatal infirmity:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The unquestioned rule in this jurisdiction is that certiorari will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against the acts of public Respondent. In the instant case, the plain and adequate remedy expressly provided by the law was a motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision, based on palpable or patent errors, to be made under oath and filed within ten (10) days from receipt of the questioned decision.

    The filing of such motion is intended to afford public respondent an opportunity to correct any actual or fancied error attributed to it by way of a re-examination of the legal and factual aspects of the case. Petitioner’s inaction or negligence under the circumstances is tantamount to a deprivation of the right and opportunity of the respondent Commission to cleanse itself of an error unwittingly committed or to vindicate itself of an act unfairly imputed." (Emphasis supplied.)

    Since the assailed decision is indisputably final and executory, its merits can no longer be examined in order to determine the existence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Commission.

    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. The decision of the National Labor Relations Commission dated September 16, 1994, is accordingly AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Regalado, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

    Torres, Jr., J., is on leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Volume 1 of Records, p. 121.

    2. Volume 1 of Records, pp. 123-130.

    3. Volume 1 of Records, pp. 259-263.

    4. Volume 1 of Records, p. 134.

    5. Volume 1 of Records, p. 135.

    6. Volume 1 of Records, p. 419.

    7. Rollo, p. 89.

    8. Ibid.

    9. Rollo, p. 39.

    10. Records, p. 582, Vol. 2.

    11. Volume 2 of Records, p. 649.

    12. Volume 2 of Records, p. 639.

    13. Flores v. NLRC, 256 SCRA 735 (1996).

    14. PNCC v. NLRC, 245 SCRA 668, 674-675 (1995); Gonpu Services Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111897, January 27, 1997.

    15. G.R. No. 94237, February 26, 1997, citing Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc., Et. Al. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 115497, September 16, 1996; Palomado v. NLRC, G.R. No. 96520, June 28, 1996; Purefoods Corp. v. NLRC, 171 SCRA 415, 425, March 21, 1989; Philippine National Construction Corp. (PNCC) v. NLRC, 245 SCRA 668, 674-675, July 7, 1995.

    G.R. No. 121275   August 7, 1997 - CENTRO ESCOLAR UNIVERSITY v. NLRC, ET AL.


    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