SECOND
DIVISION
CENTRO
ESCOLAR UNIVERSITY,
Petitioner,
G. R. No. 121275
August 7, 1997
-versus-
FIRST
DIVISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION and MARIA C. ALBA,
Respondents.
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 vs. Centro Escolar
University,"
which reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter by finding herein
petitioner
liable for illegal dismissal.
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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
On November 27,
1992, Labor Arbiter Ramon Valentin
Reyes rendered his decision[7]
dismissing the complain 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:
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:
1. Reinstate the complainant MARIA C.
ALBA to
her former position without loss of seniority right;
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.
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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
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 vs. NLRC,[15]
we held that the failure to file a motion for reconsideration is a
fatal
infirmity:
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 of 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.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Regalado, Puno
and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Torres, Jr., J., is on leave.cralaw:red
_______________________________________
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. |