Egypt Air Local Employees Association v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Egypt Air Local Employees Association NTUAI-Transphil-Tupas (petitioner) filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against Egypt Air, Inc. (EGYPT AIR) for contracting out job positions held by union members during collective bargaining negotiations. Procedural History: On September 18, 1989, Labor Arbiter Arturo V. Cosuco rendered a decision finding EGYPT AIR guilty of unfair labor practice, ordering reinstatement with backwages and attorney's fees. EGYPT AIR received the decision on October 23, 1989. On October 30, 1989, EGYPT AIR filed a manifestation and motion to correct the decision, which was in effect a motion for reconsideration, arguing that reinstatement was impossible due to the closure of its Philippine branch and takeover by Aero Asia, Inc. Petitioner filed its appeal on October 28, 1989. On October 31, 1989, Labor Arbiter Cosuco granted EGYPT AIR's motion, ordering separation pay and other benefits in lieu of reinstatement. EGYPT AIR appealed the September 18, 1989 decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) but failed to post the required appeal bond. EGYPT AIR also filed a supplemental appeal regarding backwages and separation pay computation. Labor Arbiter Cosuco modified his October 31, 1989 order on January 19, 1990. Labor Arbiter Ernesto S. Dinopol, who took over the case, ordered the execution of the January 19, 1990 order. Petitioner appealed this order to the NLRC. The Petition: The NLRC, in a Resolution dated April 3, 1991, declared the October 31, 1989 order of Labor Arbiter Cosuco as final and executory and remanded the case for its execution. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in disregarding the September 18, 1989 decision and considering the October 31, 1989 order as final and executory.
Issue(s)
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) committed grave abuse of discretion in considering the October 31, 1989 order of the Labor Arbiter as final and executory, thereby disregarding the September 18, 1989 decision. Whether a motion for reconsideration filed with a Labor Arbiter, even if filed within the reglementary period for appeal, should be given due course by the Labor Arbiter.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed Resolution of the NLRC dated April 3, 1991, is SET ASIDE. The immediate execution of the September 18, 1989 decision of Labor Arbiter Arturo V. Cosuco is hereby directed.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court found that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that the October 31, 1989 order of Labor Arbiter Cosuco, which modified his earlier decision, was null and void. This was because the Labor Arbiter had already lost his legal authority to act on the matter once the decision became appealable. The NLRC's act of considering this void order as final and executory was a clear manifestation of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that once a decision becomes final and executory, it can no longer be altered, even by the highest court. On whether a motion for reconsideration filed with a Labor Arbiter should be given due course: The Supreme Court reiterated that under Section 16, Rule VII of the Revised Rules of the National Labor Relations Commission and Article 223 of the Labor Code, no motion for reconsideration of any order or decision of a Labor Arbiter shall be given due course. The only remedy available from a Labor Arbiter's decision is to appeal to the NLRC within ten (10) calendar days. Therefore, any motion filed with the Labor Arbiter that is in effect a motion for reconsideration should be treated as an appeal and not acted upon by the Labor Arbiter, as he has lost jurisdiction. The Court noted that EGYPT AIR's manifestation and motion, though filed on time, was in effect a motion for reconsideration and should not have been given due course by the Labor Arbiter. Furthermore, EGYPT AIR's appeal to the NLRC was not perfected due to the failure to post the required appeal bond, rendering the original decision final and executory.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration filed before a Labor Arbiter, even if filed within the reglementary period to appeal, should be treated as an appeal and not given due course by the Labor Arbiter, as he loses jurisdiction to act on it. The failure to perfect an appeal by posting the required appeal bond renders the decision final and executory.