ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 140843. September 17, 2003]

MAN & LAND, INC., vs. CA

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEP 17 2003.

G.R. No. 140843 (Man & Land, Inc., petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals (8^th Division), National Labor Relations Commission (2^nd Division) and Ma. Dolores R. Mamaril, respondents.)

The controversy herein stemmed from an initial complaint for various labor violations filed with the Labor Arbiter by Ma. Dolores T. Mamaril (herein respondent) against Pamana, Inc., a sister company of Man & Land, Inc. (herein petitioner), docketed as NLRC-NCR 2-64186.

Subsequently, the parties reached a compromise agreement whereby Pamana, Inc. allowed respondent to transfer to Man & Land, Inc., petitioner (holding office at Calamba, Laguna), as a cashier with a monthly pay of P4,805.00. Petitioner provided her with free board and lodging within the compound of Pamana, Inc. situated at Barangay Real of the same municipality.

However, for unknown reasons, petitioner, in the guise of transferring its business office at a new site, directed respondent to reside in an unfinished and non-habitable house at Barangay Bucal. Worse, she was stripped of her duties as cashier. Instead, she was assigned various tasks, such as submission of a bi-monthly accomplishment report and inventory of pending work. Furthermore, she was constrained to draw her salaries at petitioner's office in Makati City, resulting in the non-payment of her salaries since July 1, 1997.

Feeling aggrieved, respondent filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for constructive dismissal, non-payment of salaries, damages and attorney's fees against petitioner, docketed as NLRC Case No. SRAB-IV-8-5269-97-L.

For its part; petitioner filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for abandonment of work against respondent, docketed as NLRC Case No. SRAB-IV-9-5290-97-L.

In due course, the Labor Arbiter rendered a consolidated Decision dated May 28, 1998 in favor of respondent. The dispositive portion reads:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1.� declaring Man and Land, Inc. guilty of constructive dismissal;

2.� ordering Man and Land, Inc. to pay complainant MA. DOLORES T. MAMARIL the following amounts:

a. Separation pay�������������������������������������������������� P 57,660.00

b. Backwages������������������������������������������� P 48,050.00

c. Unpaid salary from July 1-31, 1997 P 1,805.00

d. Attorney's fees�������������������������������������������������� P 11,050.00

Total����� P121,566.50

3.� dismissing all other claims.

"SO ORDERED."

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), in a Decision dated April 22, 1999, affirmed the Arbiter's Decision.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution dated July 26, 1999.

Hence, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari alleging that the NLRC, in issuing the said Decision and Resolution, acted with grave abuse of discretion.

Acting thereon, the Appellate Court issued the assailed Resolution dated September 21, 1999, dismissing outright the petition for certiorari for non-compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. ^[1] cralaw

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.

Petitioner now comes to this Court via a petition for certiorari imputing grave abuse of discretion to the Court of Appeals in dismissing outright its petition.

In her comment, respondent contends that certiorari is a wrong remedy and that what petitioner should have filed is a petition for review on certiorari.

Respondent is correct. When the remedy of appeal is available, the extraordinary remedy of certiorari cannot be availed of because the former proscribes recourse to the latter. ^[2] cralaw

At any rate, even if certiorari is proper, still the petition is vulnerable to dismissal. Under the above-cited Rule, personal service of petitions and other pleadings is the general rule, while a resort to other modes of service is the exception. Where recourse is made to the exception, a written explanation why the service and the filing were not done personally is indispensable, even when such explanation by its nature is acceptable and manifest. Where no explanation is offered to justify the resort to other modes, as in this case, the discretionary power of the court to expunge the pleading becomes mandatory. ^[3] cralaw

We thus hold that the Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari challenging the NLRC Decision and Resolution.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED.The Resolutions dated September 21, 1999 and November 19, 1999 of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

[1] cralaw "Sec. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. - Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed."

[2] cralaw Philippine Banking Corp. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 66510, July 6, 1990, 187 SCRA 257, citing Del Pozo vs. Penaco, G.R. No. L-48302, November 23, 198, 167 SCRA 577.

[3] cralaw Perla Zulueta vs. Asia Brewery, G.R. No. 138137, March 8, 2001, 354 SCRA 100, citing Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. vs. Ricafort, G.R. No. 132007, August 5, 1998, 293 SCRA 661.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011