ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 156601.March 26, 2003]

NAVARRO vs. CA

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 26 2003.

G.R. No. 156601(Trinidad T. Navarro vs. The Court of Appeals and Pilipinas Bank (now Prudential Bank).)

For this Court's consideration are petitioner's 1) "MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITH PRAYER FOR THE REFERRAL OF THE CASE EN CONSULTA TO THE COURT EN BANC" dated March 10, 2003 seeking a reconsideration of this Court's Resolution of February 5, 2003 dismissing her Petition for Certiorari for failure to show that grave abuse of discretion had been committed by public respondent; 2) "SUPPLEMENT (To the Motion for Reconsideration)" dated March 13, 2003; and 3) husband-counsel's March 11, 2003 identically worded letters separately addressed to The Chief Justice, Third Division Chairman Justice Reynato S. Puno and Members Justices Artemio V. Panganiban, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Renato C. Corona and Conchita Carpio Morales bearing on her Motion for Reconsideration.

Petitioner's Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, with Prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction assails "the lack of jurisdiction, the neglect/refusal to dismiss the Petition for Certiorari filed by respondent bank [assailing the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission], and the grave abuse of discretion of the Court of Appeals in issuing its Resolution dated 17 December 2002." [1] cralaw

Petitioner, in her Motion for Reconsideration, and its Supplement thereto, of this Court's February 5, 2003 Resolution, maintains that before private respondent, Pilipinas Bank (now Prudential Bank), filed its Petition for Certiorari before public respondent, Court of Appeals, questioning the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), said decision had become final and executory, private respondent having failed to seasonably file a Motion for Reconsideration thereof which is mandatory and jurisdictional, following jurisprudence. She thus reiterates that it was grave abuse of discretion for public respondent to give due course to private respondent's Petition for Certiorari and to order the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction restraining the NLRC from executing its decision.

Petitioner concedes though that there are exceptions to the rule that the timely filing of a Motion for Reconsideration is jurisdictional and mandatory, she citing jurisprudence.

In its Petition for Certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals, private respondent alleged that the exceptions to the above-said rule on the mandatory filing of a Motion for Reconsideration of the NLRC decision include cases "(a) where the issue raised is one purely of law; (b) where public interest is involved; and (c) in case of emergency (Central Bank vs. Cloribel, 44 SCRA 307; PALEA vs. PAL, 111 SCRA 215; Gonzales vs. IAC, 131 SCRA 468)."

In its case, private respondent claimed in the petition, it was "raising purely legal issue, aside from the fact that public interest is herein involved," [2] cralaw it adding that this Court has held that the "business of banking is 'affected with public interest' (Simex Int'l. Manila, Inc. vs. CA, 183 SCRA 360) and that 'relations between capital and labor are not merely contractual but impressed with public interest' (Dosch vs. NLRC, 123 SCRA 296, citing Art. 1700, New Civil Code)." [3] cralaw

By giving due course to the Petition for Certiorari of private respondent, public respondent credited the latter's proffered reasons to take its case out of the general rule requiring the filing of a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision. Petitioner has not shown, however, why public respondent's giving due course to the said petition under the circumstances was attended with grave abuse of discretion.

Public respondent could, under Section 6 of Rule VIII of the NLRC New Rules of Procedure, as amended, abate the execution of the NLRC decision by the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order which it did. And it subsequently ordered the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction by its assailed December 17, 2002 Resolution.

In fine, this Court's dismissal of petitioner's petition for failure to show grave abuse of discretion on public respondent's part stands.

WHEREFORE, petitioner's "MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITH PRAYER FOR REFERRAL OF THE CASE EN CONSULTA TO THE COURT EN BANC" is hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court



Endnotes:

[1] cralaw The Court of Appeals Resolution of December 17, 2002 ordered the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction "to further enjoin and restrain [the NLRC] from . . . executing its questioned decision."

[2] cralaw Rollo at 121-122.

[3] cralaw Id. at 122.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com