By: Unknown Contributor
FACTS:
Castro was hired by petitioner as a mechanic in April 1975. He was promoted to supervisor in 1986. On December 31, 1994, he suffered a stroke. On his doctor's advice, he took a leave of absence from work. He extended his leave several times, and while on leave, Cruz sent him several letters urging him to return to work. Cruz also filed complaints for estafa and qualified theft. Because of these, Castro was constrained to file a case for illegal dismissal on the ground that Cruz's act constituted constructive dismissal.
Veloria, on the other hand, was hired in 1977 as a carpenter and, in 1993, as senior mechanic. He figured in an accident when overheated water coming from the radiator he was repairing spurted onto his face, burning it. He was forced to absent himself to recuperate and during such absence, he also received several letters from Cruz. He was also charged for qualified theft. Veloria also sued Cruz for illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Castro and Veloria but the decision was reversed by the NLRC. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the CA. The appellate court granted the petition. Petitioner now faults the CA for reversing the decision asserting that the petition for certiorari should have been dismissed outright for failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC before filing a petition for certiorari with the CA.
ISSUE:
FACTS:
Castro was hired by petitioner as a mechanic in April 1975. He was promoted to supervisor in 1986. On December 31, 1994, he suffered a stroke. On his doctor's advice, he took a leave of absence from work. He extended his leave several times, and while on leave, Cruz sent him several letters urging him to return to work. Cruz also filed complaints for estafa and qualified theft. Because of these, Castro was constrained to file a case for illegal dismissal on the ground that Cruz's act constituted constructive dismissal.
Veloria, on the other hand, was hired in 1977 as a carpenter and, in 1993, as senior mechanic. He figured in an accident when overheated water coming from the radiator he was repairing spurted onto his face, burning it. He was forced to absent himself to recuperate and during such absence, he also received several letters from Cruz. He was also charged for qualified theft. Veloria also sued Cruz for illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Castro and Veloria but the decision was reversed by the NLRC. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the CA. The appellate court granted the petition. Petitioner now faults the CA for reversing the decision asserting that the petition for certiorari should have been dismissed outright for failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC before filing a petition for certiorari with the CA.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petition for certiorari should have been dismissed outright.
HELD:
No, the petition for certiorari should not have been dismissed outright.
As a general rule, a motion for reconsideration is needed before a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 can be resorted to. However, there are well recognized exceptions to this rule. The case at bar falls under the exceptions to the general rule. The employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and private respondents was impressed with public interest. Thus it was proper for the appellate court to take cognizance of the case even if no motion for reconsideration had been filed by the private respondents with the NLRC.
The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, more so in consideration of the extraordinary writ of certiorari where neither questions of fact nor of law are entertained, but only questions of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The sole object of the writ is to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The phrase 'grave abuse of discretion' has a precise meaning in law, denoting abuse of discretion "too patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty, or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or act in contemplation of law, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and personal hostility." It does not encompass an error of law. Nor does it include a mistake in the appreciation of the contending parties' respective evidence of the evaluation of their relative weight.
HELD:
No, the petition for certiorari should not have been dismissed outright.
As a general rule, a motion for reconsideration is needed before a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 can be resorted to. However, there are well recognized exceptions to this rule. The case at bar falls under the exceptions to the general rule. The employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and private respondents was impressed with public interest. Thus it was proper for the appellate court to take cognizance of the case even if no motion for reconsideration had been filed by the private respondents with the NLRC.
The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, more so in consideration of the extraordinary writ of certiorari where neither questions of fact nor of law are entertained, but only questions of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The sole object of the writ is to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The phrase 'grave abuse of discretion' has a precise meaning in law, denoting abuse of discretion "too patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty, or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or act in contemplation of law, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and personal hostility." It does not encompass an error of law. Nor does it include a mistake in the appreciation of the contending parties' respective evidence of the evaluation of their relative weight.
