G.R. No. 130866. September 16, 1998. * ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOME, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and BIENVENIDO ARICAYOS, respondents.

St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Bienvenido Arcayos

G.R. No. 130866

September 16, 1998

 

Facts: Respondent (Arcayos) was summarily dismissed by St. Martin Funeral Homes for misappropriating funds worth Php 38,000 which was supposed to be taxes paid to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Alleging that the dismissal was illegal, respondent filed a case against St. Martin Funeral Homes in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

Petitioner’s (St. Martin Funeral Homes) contention is that the respondent is not an employee due to the lack of an employer-employee contract. In addition, respondent is not listed on St. Martin’s monthly payroll.

The labor arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, confirming that indeed, there was no employer-employee relationship between the two and hence, there could be no illegal dismissal in such a situation.

The respondent appealed to the secretary of NLRC who set aside the decision and remanded the case to the labor arbiter. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but was denied by the NLRC. Now, petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court – alleging that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner’s appeal/petition for certiorari was properly filed in the Supreme Court.

Held: No.

Historically, decisions from the NLRC were appealable to the Secretary of Labor, whose decisions are then appealable to the Office of the President. However, the new rules do not anymore provide provisions regarding appellate review for decisions rendered by the NLRC.

However in this case, the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to review such decisions from the NLRC by virtue of their role under the check and balance system and the perceived intention of the legislative body who enacted the new rules.

“It held that there is an underlying power of the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute; that the purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protect the substantial rights of the parties; and that it is that part of the checks and balances which restricts the separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust adjudications.”

The petitioners rightfully filed a motion for reconsideration, but the appeal or certiorari should have been filed initially to the Court of Appeals – as consistent with the principle of hierarchy of courts. As such, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals.

It will, however, be noted that paragraph (3), Section 9 of B.P. No. 129 now grants exclusive appellate jurisdiction to the Court of Appeals over all final adjudications of the Regional Trial Courts and the quasi-judicial agencies generally or specifically referred to therein except, among others, “those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with x x x the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, x x x.” This would necessarily contradict what has been ruled and said all along that appeal does not lie from decisions of the NLRC. Yet, under such excepting clause literally construed, the appeal from the NLRC cannot be brought to the Court of Appeals, but to this Court by necessary implication. Same; Same; Same; Same; There are no cases in the Labor Code the decisions, resolutions, orders or awards wherein are within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or of any other court for that matter.—The same exceptive clause further confuses the situation by declaring that the Court of Appeals has no appellate jurisdiction over decisions falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the provisions of B.P. No. 129, and those specified cases in Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. These cases can, of course, be properly excluded from the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. However, because of the aforementioned amendment by transposition, also supposedly excluded are cases falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Labor Code. This is illogical and impracticable, and Congress could not have intended that procedural gaffe, since there are no cases in the Labor Code the decisions, resolutions, orders or awards wherein are within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or of any other court for that matter. 

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Certiorari; Pleadings and Practice; The Court is of the considered opinion that ever since appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court were eliminated, the legislative intendment was that the special civil action of certiorari was and still is the proper vehicle for judicial review of decisions of the NLRC; Appeals by certiorari and the original action for certiorari are both modes of judicial review addressed to the appellate courts.—The Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that ever since appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court were eliminated, the legislative intendment was that the special civil action of certiorari was and still is the proper vehicle for judicial review of decisions of the NLRC. The use of the word “appeal” in relation thereto and in the instances we have noted could have been a lapsus plumae because appeals by certiorari and the original action for certiorari are both modes of judicial review addressed to the appellate courts. The important distinction between them, however, and with which the Court is particularly concerned here is that the special civil action of certiorari is within the concurrent original jurisdiction of this Court and the Court of Appeals; whereas to indulge in the assumption that appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court are allowed would not subserve, but would subvert, the intention of Congress as expressed in the sponsorship speech on Senate Bill No. 1495.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Hierarchy of Courts; All references in the amended Section 9 of B.P. No. 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are inter

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.

The present petition for certiorari stemmed from a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by herein private respondent before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Regional Arbitration Branch No. III, in San Fernando, Pampanga. Private respondent alleges that he started working as Operations Manager of petitioner St. Martin Funeral Home on February 6, 1995. However, there was no contract of employment executed between him and petitioner nor was his name included in the semi-monthly payroll. On January 22, 1996, he was dismissed from his employment for allegedly misappropriating P38,000.00 which was intended for payment by petitioner of its value added tax (VAT) to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). 

The Funeral Home claims that private respondent was not its employee but only the uncle of Amelita Malabed, the owner of St. Martin’s Funeral Home. Sometime in 1995, private respondent, who was formerly working as an overseas contract worker, asked for financial assistance from the mother of Amelita. Since then, as an indication of gratitude, private respondent voluntarily helped the mother of Amelita in overseeing the business. 

In January 1996, the mother of Amelita passed away, so Amelita herself took over the management of the business. She then discovered that there were arrears in the payment of taxes and other government fees, ... made some changes in the business operation. Private respondent and his wife were no longer allowed to participate in the management thus the illegal dismissal case filed before the RTC.

Labor Arbiter - no emloyer-employee relation, no jursdiction

NLRC - remanded to Labor Arbiter

Motion for reconsideration - denied

Thus, to repeat, under the present state of the law, there is no provision for appeals from the decision of the NLRC. 1 0 The present Section 223, as last amended by Section 12 of R.A. No. 6715, instead merely provides that the Commission shall decide all cases within twenty days from receipt of the answer of the appellee, and that such decision shall be final and executory after ten calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties. 

It held that there is an underlying power of the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute; that the purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protect the substantial rights of the parties; and that it is that part of the checks and balances which restricts the separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust adjudications. 

file a motion for reconsideration as a precondition for any further or subsequent remedy, 1 2 and then seasonably avail of the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65, 1 3 for which said Rule has now fixed the reglementary period of sixty days from notice of the decision. 

The Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that ever since appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court were eliminated, the legislative intendment was that the special civil action of certiorari was and still is the proper vehicle for

 judicial review of decisions of the NLRC. The use of the word “appeal” in relation thereto and in the instances we have noted could have been a lapsus plumae because appeals by certiorari and the original action for certiorari are both modes of judicial review addressed to the appellate courts. The important distinction between them, however, and with which the Court is particularly concerned here is that the special civil action of certiorari is within the concurrent original jurisdiction of this Court and the Court of Appeals; 2 3 whereas to indulge in the assumption that appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court are allowed would not subserve, but would subvert, the intention of Congress as expressed in the sponsorship speech on Senate Bill No. 1495.

Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of B.P. No. 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. Consequently, all such petitions should henceforth be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the appropriate forum for the relief desired. Apropos to this directive that resort to the higher courts should be made in accordance with their hierarchical order, this pronouncement in Santiago vs. Vasquez, et al.2 5 should be taken into account:

WHEREFORE, under the foregoing premises, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby REMANDED, and all pertinent records thereof ordered to be FORWARDED, to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition consistent with the views and ruling herein set forth, without pronouncement as to costs.