Philippine National Construction Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private Respondent Lorenzo Mendoza was employed by Petitioner Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) in various capacities as Driver II from July 14, 1981, until his last engagement which ended on June 15, 1989. After his last assignment, Mendoza claimed benefits under PNCC's Retrenchment Program, specifically paragraph 2.1, which provides separation benefits to employees who have rendered at least one year of continuous service and were actively employed as of their separation date. Procedural History: PNCC denied Mendoza's claim. Mendoza filed a complaint for non-payment of separation pay. The Executive Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Mendoza, ordering PNCC to pay separation pay and attorney's fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision, except for the award of attorney's fees. The Petition: PNCC filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the NLRC decision. PNCC argued that Mendoza was a project employee whose service was not continuous and that his last assignment was only for ten months, thus not meeting the one-year continuous service requirement. PNCC also contended that the complaint was filed late under Article 291 of the Labor Code. PNCC admitted it did not file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision.
Issue(s)
Whether a motion for reconsideration is required prior to filing a petition for certiorari. Whether private respondent Lorenzo Mendoza is entitled to separation benefits under petitioner's Retrenchment Program. Whether the award of attorney's fees should be reinstated.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of attorney's fees is REINSTATED and that legal interest of 6 percent per annum be paid to private respondent computed from the date of the filing of the complaint before the labor arbiter. The temporary restraining order issued on October 27, 1992, is LIFTED. Costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the requirement of a motion for reconsideration before filing a petition for certiorari: The Court held that the failure of the petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision is a fatal procedural defect. The rule is that certiorari will lie only if there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. A motion for reconsideration is the plain and adequate remedy expressly provided by law to afford the NLRC an opportunity to correct errors. Petitioner's bare allegation that the same questions raised before the NLRC would be raised before the Supreme Court is not a valid excuse for non-compliance. Failure to file such a motion renders the NLRC decision final and executory. On whether private respondent is entitled to separation benefits: The Court affirmed the NLRC's ruling that Mendoza is entitled to separation benefits. The Retrenchment Program requires at least one year of continuous service and active employment at the time of separation. While Mendoza's last engagement was less than a year, the Court considered his prior services with PNCC, totaling over five years, to meet the "at least one year of continuous service" requirement. The program's language does not require the service to be immediately prior to separation, and doubts in interpreting such programs are construed in favor of labor. Mendoza's employment contracts also indicated he was a "regular employee," further strengthening his claim. On the award of attorney's fees: The Court reinstated the award of attorney's fees. It reasoned that Mendoza was compelled to litigate for eight years to obtain benefits legally due to him. In actions for recovery of wages or where an employee is forced to litigate to protect their rights, the award of attorney's fees is legally and morally justifiable. The petitioner's unjustified stance necessitated the expense of retaining a lawyer and enduring a lengthy legal process.
Main Doctrine
In the interpretation of an employer's retrenchment program providing for separation benefits, all doubts should be construed in favor of the underprivileged workers. A motion for reconsideration is a mandatory requirement before filing a petition for certiorari, with limited exceptions not present in this case.