ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 142580. June 21, 2000]

KASAPIAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWANG PINAGKAISA (KAMPI-NAFLU-KMU) et al. vs. REPUBLIC FLOUR MILLS, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 21 2000.

G.R. No. 142580 (Kasapian ng mga Manggagawang Pinagkaisa (KAMPI-NAFLU-KMU) and Ricardo Achura vs. Republic Flour Mills (Flour Department), Raul Villapa�a and the Court of Appeals.)

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 seeking the reversal of the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, dated 29 October 1999 and 1 March 2000, which dismissed the petition filed by petitioner and denied its motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioner availed of the wrong mode of appeal. The appellate court ruled that since the decision subject of review was rendered by a voluntary arbitrator then petitioner should have availed of the remedy under Rule 43, and not under Rule 65.

The appellate court was correct in dismissing the petition. Indeed, petitioner sought review of the decision of a voluntary arbitrator in the labor case entitled, "In Re: Voluntary Arbitration Between Kasapian Ng Mga Manggagawang Pinagkaisa (KAMPI-NAFLU) and Ricardo Achura v. Republic Flour Mills (Flour Department) and Raul Villapa�a." In accordance with the Rules of Court, decisions of voluntary arbitrators are appealable to the Court of Appeals through a petition for review under Rule 43, to wit:

RULE 43

APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS AND

QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Section 1. Scope.-This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National Telecommunication Commission, Department Agrarian reform under Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission, Agricultural Inventions Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law. 1 Underscoring supplied.

Hence, the Court of Appeals did not commit any error in its aforesaid resolutions. Moreover, after a careful study of the facts of the case, we find the petition to be devoid of merit.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE