By: Unknown Contributor
FACTS:
Private respondent, Bienvenido Aricayos, alleged in a complaint for illegal dismissal, that he started working as Operations Manager of 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 which was intended for payment by petitioner of its VAT to the BIR.
The Labor Arbiter rendered decision in favor of petitioner. However, the NLRC rendered a resolution setting aside the questioned decision and remanding the case to the Labor Arbiter for immediate appropriate proceedings. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the NLRC. Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court alleging that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a special civil action of certiorari is the proper vehicle for judicial review by the Supreme Court of decisions of the NLRC.
HELD:
Yes.
FACTS:
Private respondent, Bienvenido Aricayos, alleged in a complaint for illegal dismissal, that he started working as Operations Manager of 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 which was intended for payment by petitioner of its VAT to the BIR.
The Labor Arbiter rendered decision in favor of petitioner. However, the NLRC rendered a resolution setting aside the questioned decision and remanding the case to the Labor Arbiter for immediate appropriate proceedings. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the NLRC. Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court alleging that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a special civil action of certiorari is the proper vehicle for judicial review by the Supreme Court of decisions of the NLRC.
HELD:
Yes.
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 important distinction between them, however, and with which the Court is particularly concerned is that special civil action of certiorari is within the concurrent original jurisdiction of the Supreme 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.
There is a growing number of labor cases being elevated to the Supreme Court which, not being a trier of fact, has at times been constrained to remand the case to the NLRC for resolution of unclear or ambiguous factual findings; that the Court of Appeals is procedurally equipped for that purpose, aside from the increased number of its component divisions; and that there is undeniably an imperative need for expeditious action on labor cases as a major aspect of constitutional protection to labor.
Therefore, all 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 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.
There is a growing number of labor cases being elevated to the Supreme Court which, not being a trier of fact, has at times been constrained to remand the case to the NLRC for resolution of unclear or ambiguous factual findings; that the Court of Appeals is procedurally equipped for that purpose, aside from the increased number of its component divisions; and that there is undeniably an imperative need for expeditious action on labor cases as a major aspect of constitutional protection to labor.
Therefore, all 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 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.
