Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > January 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 197724 : January 18, 2012] JESUS SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, EXPORT AND INDUSTRY BANK, GERARDO V. MUNDA AND NILO L. PACHECO. :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 18 January 2012 which reads as follows:cralaw

G.R. No. 197724 (Jesus Soriano v. Court of Appeals, Export and Industry Bank, Gerardo V. Munda and Nilo L. Pacheco). � Petitioner filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, nonpayment of 13th month pay, service leave pay, 2007 Christmas bonus, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees which the labor arbiter granted.^[1] Respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which, on 15 October 2008, issued a Decision^[2] reversing the labor arbiter's Decision. The parties' Motions for Reconsideration were both denied by the NLRC in its 19 January 2010 Resolution.^[3] The NLRC's Decision and Resolution became final and executory^[4] and an Entry of Judgment was issued by the NLRC on 29 March 2010.

On 13 October 2010, or more than 6 months thereafter, petitioner, assisted by new counsel, filed before the Court of Appeals (CA) a Petition for Annulment of Final Resolution and Judgment under Rule 47.^[5]

In its 27 January 2011 Resolution,^[6] the CA denied the Petition, holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain a petition for annulment of a final and executory judgment of the NLRC under Rule 47. The CA also denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration in its Resolution dated 27 May 2011.^[7]  Hence, petitioner filed a Rule 45 Petition before this Court.

In our Resolution dated 21 September 2011, we dismissed the Petition for failure to sufficiently show that the questioned Resolutions of the CA were tainted by grave abuse of discretion.

Petitioner now seeks reconsideration of this Court's Resolution. He claims that the decision in Springfield Development Corporation, Inc. v. Judge of Regional Trial Court, Misamis Oriental^[8] and Elcee Farms, Inc. v. Saguemuller^[9] provide exceptions to the general rule that the CA has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition for annulment of a final and executory judgment of the NLRC. He further claims that his case falls within the exception.

A reading of Springfield will show that petitioner filed both a petition for prohibition and a petition for annulment of judgment of the HLURB before the CA. The CA did not act on the petition for prohibition. It dismissed the petition for annulment on the ground that it had no jurisdiction over such action. This Court affirmed the CA's dismissal of the petition for annulment of judgment. It nevertheless remanded the case to the CA, but only so that it can resolve petitioners' prayer for the issuance of the writ of prohibition which had been pending before it.

Neither does the Elcee Farms Decision provide any exception to this rule. When the Court stated therein that "(m)oreover, annulment of judgment is allowed only where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of petitioners," it did not mean to provide an exception to the rule, but to reiterate one of the conditions necessary before a petition for annulment of judgment can be filed under the Rules. cralaw

WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY. No further pleadings or motions shall be entertained in this case. Let entry of judgment be made in due course. (Perlas-Bernabe, J., additional member vice Brion, J., per S. O. No. 1174 dated 9 January 2012)

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 107-120.

^[2] Id. at 91-103. 

^[3] Id. at 83-90. 

^[4] Id. at 105. 

^[5] Id. at 50-82. 

^[6] Id. at 45-47. 

^[7] Id. at 48-49. 

^[8] G.R. No. 142628, 6 February 2007, 514 SCRA 326. 

^[9] G.R. No. 150286, 17 October 2003, 413 SCRA 669.