ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 162087.� March 2, 2005]
COMMONWEALTH vs. CA
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 2 2005.
G.R. No. 162087 (Commonwealth Savings and Loan Bank, Inc., and Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, National Labor Relations Commission, Christopher Templanza, Rolando C. Ortilla, Marcelino P. Teodoro, Jr., Vilma F. Anastacio, Lourdes S. Quingco, Merigen M. Obingayen, Armando Canlas, Steve C. Orteza, Ma. Margarita D. Castilo, Constancia R. Rapatan, Jr., Honorata R. Bilagantol, Benjamin P. Flores, Benedicto P. Hementera, Benito A. Ramirez, Rafael G. Layugan, Lizette F. Lim, Cynthia R. Lacasa.)
Before the Court is special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking the annulment of the Decision [1] cralaw of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 64018 affirming the October 16, 2000 and the January 30, 2001 Resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in CA No. 022073-00/NCR Cases Nos. 00-01-00268-99 and 00-03-02452-99, as well as the Resolution dated December 11, 2003, denying the petitioners' motion for reconsideration thereof.
Petitioner Commonwealth Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. (petitioner Bank for brevity) was a banking corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws. On June 3, 1998, the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas issued MB Resolution No. 783, ordering the closure of the petitioner Bank on the ground of insolvency. Pursuant to Section 30 of Republic Act No. 7653, petitioner Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) was designated as its receiver.
As a consequence of such closure, the services of the employees of the petitioner Bank were terminated through a Letter dated June 17, 1998, stating that "in the event that the Monetary Board shall determine and confirm that the said bank is insolvent and cannot resume business with safety to its depositors, creditors and the general public, this letter will also serve as a notice of termination of your employment with the Commonwealth Savings and Loan Bank, Inc., in accordance with the Labor Code." [2] cralaw Among the employees whose services were terminated were private respondents Christopher Templanza, Rolando C. Ortilla, Marcelino P. Teodoro, Jr., Vilma F. Anastacio, Lourdes S. Quingco, Merigen M. Obingayen, Armando Canlas, Steve C. Orteza, Ma. Margarita D. Castilo, Constancio R. Rapatan, Jr., Honorata R. Bilagantol, Benjamin P. Flores, Benedicto P. Hementera, Benito A. Ramirez, Rafael G. Layugan, Lizette F. Lim, and Cynthia R. Lacasa.
On December 16, 1998, the Monetary Board issued Resolution No. 1770, ordering the liquidation of the petitioner Bank.
On January 8, 1999, the private respondents filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal, against the petitioners and claimed, among others, that they
were entitled to the payment of backwages, separation pay, overtime pay,
Accumulated vacation and sick leave pay, Christmas Bonus for the years 1997 and
1998, 13th month pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's
fees. Aside from opposing the said claims, the petitioners raised by way of
counterclaim the unpaid loans of the private respondents amounting to P74,510.28,
to be deducted from any monetary award which may be granted in favor of the
latter.
On November 22, 1999, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of the private respondents. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the respondents Commonwealth Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. and Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) are hereby ordered to, jointly and severally, pay complainants the amount indicated opposite their respective names, representing their separation pay, sick leave pay and 13th month pay, to wit:
1.������ VILMA
ANASTACIO - - - - - - - - -P15,750.00
2.������ HONORATA BILAGANTOL - - - -� P�
9,156.00
3.������ ARMANDO CANLAS - - - - - - - -
-P50,455.05
4.������ MA. MARGARITA CASTILO - - - - P30,671.95
5.������ BENJAMIN FLORES - - - - - - -
- - P52,685.09
6.������ BENEDICTO HEMENTERA - - - - -P21,187.49
7.������ CYNTHIA LACASA - - - - - - - -
- - -P33,904.43
8.������ RAFAEL LAYUGAN - - - - - - - -
- - P26,658.89
9.������ LIZETTE LIM - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -P80,220.00
10.���� MERIGEN OB1NGAYEN - - - - - - -P�
7,447.46
11.���� STEVE ORTEZA - - - - - - - - -
- - -P21,324.55
12.���� ROLANDO ORTILLA - - - - - - - -
- P14,437.50
13.���� LOURDES QUINGCO - - - - - - - -
P26,896.19
14.���� BENITO RAMIREZ - - - - - - - -
- - P31,993.51
15.���� CONSTANCIO RAPATAN - - - - - -P12,289.22
16.���� CHRISTOPHER TEMPLANZA - - -P30,296.03
17.���� MARCELINO TEODORO - - - - - -
P
71,257.94
TOTAL - - - -
P536,630.99
(sic)
* should be P536,630.41
Mr. Eulogio Yutingco is hereby ordered dropped/excluded as party-respondent in these cases.
All other claims are DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. [3] cralaw
The petitioners appealed the decision to the NLRC, claiming that the Labor Arbiter erred in holding that the petitioner Bank's closure was not due to serious business losses; in holding the petitioners liable for separation pay and ruling that petitioner PDIC was jointly and severally liable with the petitioner Bank in the payment of monetary claims of the private respondents; in failing to apply the outstanding loans of the latter against their monetary claims; and in computing the 13th month pay due to the private respondents. [4] cralaw
On October 16, 2000, the NLRC rendered a resolution affirming with modification the ruling of the Labor Arbiter, to wit:
ACCORDINGLY, premises considered, the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED to the effect that:
a)����� PDIC is hereby declared not jointly and solidarily liable with respondent-appellant Commonwealth Savings and Loan [Bank, Inc.];
b)����� Respondent-appellant bank is hereby authorized to deduct the obligation of complainant-appellee from all benefits due them.
In all other aspects, the decision is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. [5] cralaw
The petitioners filed a motion for partial reconsideration of the said ruling, which was, likewise, denied. The case was then elevated to the Court of Appeals via petition for review on certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court denied the petition and affirmed the resolution of the NLRC on April 30, 2002. The petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration thereof, which the Court of Appeals denied on December 11, 2003. [6] cralaw
Hence, the present petition, where the petitioners allege that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion and/or lack of jurisdiction in affirming the ruling of the NLRC.
In their comment on the petition, the private respondents point out that the petitioners failed to file a petition for review on certiorari, and instead resorted to the filing of a petition under Rule 65, and even waited for the last clay to file the same. The private respondents claim that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed decision and resolution.
The Court notes that the petitioners received the notice of the denial of their motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals Decision on January 1, 2004. Instead of filing an appeal before this Court within the 15-day reglemenlary period in accordance with Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 only on March 1, 2004.
This, however, cannot be countenanced. Certiorari lies only where there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. [7] cralaw Indeed, certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for lost or lapsed remedy of appeal, especially if such loss was occasioned by one's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies. [8] cralaw Moreover, there is no reason why the question being raised by petitioners, i.e., whether the appellate court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying their petition, could not have been raised on appeal. [9] cralaw Where a court has jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is an exercise of that jurisdiction. Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise of such jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment, reviewable by timely appeal and not by a special civil action for certiorari. [10] cralaw
Indeed, a writ of certiorari is a prerogative writ, never demandable as a matter of right, or a part of due process. A writ of certiorari is a prerogative writ, never issued except in the exercise of judicial discretion. Hence, he who seeks a writ of certiorari must apply for it in the manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and the Rules. [11] cralaw
The Court thus finds that the petitioners' imputation of grave abuse of discretion to the respondent court as alleged in its petition is but a vain attempt to justify their erroneous mode of challenging the decision.
Even a careful perusal of the merits of the case would reveal that the petition is destined to fail. Indeed, this Court is not a trier of facts, and this doctrine applies with greater force in labor cases. [12] cralaw The findings of fact of the CA, particularly if they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC and when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great weight and respect, [13] cralaw and even finality, unless it is shown that the evidence of the parties was arbitrarily disregarded. [14] cralaw As long as their decisions are devoid of any unfairness or arbitrariness in the process of their deduction from the evidence proffered by the parties, all that is left is for the Court to stamp its affirmation and declare its finality. [15] cralaw
In any case, the instant petition cannot be treated as a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, having been filed only on March 1, 2004, beyond the 15-day reglementary period therefor.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 64018, as well as its Resolution of December 11, 2003, is AFFIRMED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion, with Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo and Edgardo F. Sundiam, concurring.
[2] cralaw Rollo, p. 7.
[3] cralaw Id. at 46-47.
[4] cralaw Id. at 55.
[5] cralaw Id. at 58-59.
[6] cralaw Id. at 37.
[7] cralaw See Rosete v. Court of Appeals, 339 SCRA 193 (2000).
[8] cralaw Sumndad v. Hanigan, 381 SCRA 8 (2002).
[9] cralaw See Republic v. Court of Appeals, 322 SCRA 81 (2000); Conejos v. Court of Appeals, 387 SCRA 142 (2002).
[10] cralaw Ibid.: see also GSIS v. Olisa, 304 SCRA 421 (1999): Sumndad v. Hanigan. supra.
[11] cralaw NYK International Knitwear Corporation Philippines v. National Labor Relations Commission, 397 SCRA 607 (2003).
[12] cralaw Shoppes Manila, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 419 SCRA 354 (2004).
[13] cralaw Cosmos Bottling Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 405 SCRA 258 (2003).
[14] cralaw Mac Adams Metal Engineering Workers Union-Independent v. Mac Adams Metal Engineering, 414 SCRA 411 (2003).
[15] cralaw NYK International Knitwear Corporation Philippines v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
