ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 139402. September 20, 1999]

JMM PROMOTIONS & MGMT., INC. vs. FLORENCE BULAHAO

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 20 1999.

G.R. No. 139402 (JMM Promotions and Management, Inc. vs. Florence Bulahao.)

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to annul and set aside the resolutions of March 8 and July 19, 1999 of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are: Private respondent Florence Bulahao was employed as a domestic helper by Manpower Consulting Agency Ltd. Through its local agent, petitioner JMM Promotions and Management, Inc. for a stipulated period of two (2) years with a monthly salary of US $200.00. As a result, she was deployed to Beirut, Lebanon on April 19, 1994 and commenced her work there as such. For a span of 13 months, she was transferred from one employer to another for seven times. She went to the office of Manpower Consulting Agency on June 4, 1995 and she was advised to return to the Philippines. She claimed that she was not paid her salaries. Thus, she filed a complaint before the POEA for unpaid salaries and for salaries covering the unexpired portion of her contract of employment. In answer to her complaint, petitioner averred that she voluntarily terminated her contract due to homesickness, as evidenced by a quitclaim which she executed on June 2, 1995. Subsequently, the POEA rendered judgment dated September 26, 1996, finding petitioner jointly and severally liable to respondent's unpaid salary and salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract in the amount of US$2,400.00 and US $2,200.00 respectively. On appeal, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for petitioner's failure to post a cash or surety bond. The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals but the same denied for petitioner's failure to file with the NLRC a motion for reconsideration which was a condition sine qua non to the filing of a petition for certiorari before said court. The motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner, as a last resort, files the instant petition for review on certiorari before this Court and raises the following assigned errors:

a)�������� Public respondent committed serious error in law when it failed to correct the Commission's (NLRC) erroneous ruling of dismissing the appeal taken by petitioner by failing to consider that the matter relative to the processing of supersedeas bond is not within the control of petitioner and that there was substantial compliance when said bond was filed within the period prayed for in the motion for extension of time.

b)�������� Public respondent committed serious error when it failed and refused to rule that private respondent alleged suffering at the hands of her employer in Beirut is not supported by evidence nor it is in the complaint affidavit filed.

c)�������� Public respondent committed error in law in disregarding the document of "acquittal" executed by private respondent and chose instead an afterthought allegations which is/are bereft of basis.

d)�������� Public respondent erred when it failed to rule that the Labor Arbiter is without authority and jurisdiction to award salaries for twelve (12) months representing the unexpired portion of private respondent's employment contract.

We deny the petition. As a rule, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules in Civil Procedures allows only questions of law save for certain established exceptions. The points raised are factual matters and as such should have been threshed out before the quasi-judicial agencies which are triers of facts which are within the ambit and competence of the labor tribunals to determine (Chua vs. NLRC, 267 SCRA 196). The failure of petitioner to post a cash or surety bond which is mandatory and jurisdictional and its subsequent failure to file a motion for reconsideration before filing its petition for certiorari are fatal and merited the dismissal of its case. Well-rooted is the principle that procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights (Zepeda v. CA, August 16, 1999). Like all rules, they are required to be followed in order that courts may be able to administer justice.

Accordingly, the petition is denied, the issues raised being, essentially factual and there being no showing that the said Court of Appeals had committed any reversible error in the questioned judgment.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE