ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
GO TO FULL LIST OF LATEST DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS
G. R. No. 95478 December 19, 1990 -versus-
GRINO-AQUINO, J.: In this Petition for Certiorariunder Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the petitioners [86 security guards] assail:
(2) the order of August 24, 1990 denying their motion for reconsideration and remanding the records of the case to the Arbitration Branch for further proceedings [Annex B]. On October 11, 1988, the petitioners filed in the Department of Labor and Employment Regional Office XI a letter-complaint charging SUDECOR with violations of labor standards, by not paying them overtime pay, rest day pay, holiday pay, night differentials, daily camping allowance, not providing them with safety devices and housing, and by illegally dismissing some employees [NLRC Case No. RAB-11-04-00277-89]. On April 12, 1 989, the Regional Director indorsed the case to the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC because an issue arose as to whether the complainants [herein petitioners] were employees of SUDECOR.cralaw:red On May 23,1990, the petitioners, anticipating their mass dismissal at the end of that month, filed with the NLRC a telegraphic motion for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the same. They followed it up on May 28, 1990 with a supplemental complaint and petition for preliminary injunction with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order which was received by the NLRC on May 30,1990.cralaw:red As previously stated, both the telegraphic and formal petitions for injunction were not acted upon immediately by the NLRC. By the time it did on June 11, 1990, the petitioners had already been laid off from their jobs. The NLRC's minute resolution dated June 11, 1990 stated that:
The petitioners received the resolution on June 14, 1990. They filed by registered mail on June 25, 1990 a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC en banc which denied their motion for tardiness. The dispositive part of the NLRC resolution dated August 24, 1990, received by the petitioners on September 14, 1990, reads as follows:
The petitioners allege that the NLRC erred in holding that their motion for reconsideration was filed late because said pleading was in fact filed on the tenth day of the ten-day period for appeal not "three [3] days out of time." [p. 28, Rollo].cralaw:red The petition for certiorari has no merit. Even if the petitioners' computation of the appeal period were correct, the NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying their motion for reconsideration for ', as a matter of fact, the injunctive relief prayed for could not be granted because the mass layoffs which were sought to be enjoined, had already occurred. A writ of injunction cannot be issued against consummated acts (Ramos vs. CA, G. R. No. 80908, May 24,1989; Aragones vs. Subido, 25 SCRA 95 [1968]; Ramonte vs. Bonto, 16 SCRA 257 [19601]).cralaw:red The failure of the NLRC to act immediately on the application for injunction is not reviewable by this Court. In light of the explanation given by the Commission in its order of August 24, 1990, no grave abuse of discretion nor excess of jurisdiction is imputable to it.cralaw:red In passing it
should be stated here and now that
the regionalization of the Commission is by mandate of Republic
Act
No. 6715 which amended the Labor Code. Pursuant thereto, this Division
of the Commission after months of preparation opened its doors in
Cagayan
de Oro City on May 17,1990. At the time everything was in
disarray.
The records were not yet delivered by the shipping company at the
Warehouse.
The Commissioners who are not from the place were still relocating
their
families. To top it all, the staffing pattern intended for the Division
Office was not yet realized because of the lack of funding and the
dearth
of trained personnel.
In any event, the petitioners are not bereft of adequate remedies. In their action for illegal dismissal, [RAB-11-04-00277-89, "Eduardo Acop, et al., vs. Surigao Development Corporation and Ret. Gen. Reynaldo G. Dilan, Vice-President for Field Operations and Administration"] which is still pending in the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC, they may prove the employer-employee relationship between themselves and SUDECOR [which the latter has denied] and ask for reinstatement with backwages.cralaw:red WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is dismissed for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioners.cralaw:red SO ORDERED. |
|