Centro Escolar University v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Maria C. Alba was hired by petitioner Centro Escolar University (CEU) in July 1971 and rose through the ranks, eventually becoming Administrator of the Health Services Department. On December 5, 1990, she was placed under preventive suspension due to a complaint from her staff regarding her behavior. An investigating committee recommended that the clinic be headed by a medical officer. Subsequently, private respondent was advised to go on leave without pay and then to retire. She was directed to go on leave from January 16, 1991, to July 6, 1991, with a warning of being considered AWOL if she did not comply. Upon her return on July 18, 1991, she was given a retirement form, which she refused to accomplish. On September 18, 1991, she received a notice of termination. Procedural History: Private respondent filed a complaint for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, non-payment of salary, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, allowances, and moral damages. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding that private respondent was dismissed for just cause with due process. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. The Petition: Petitioner CEU filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the NLRC decision. Petitioner received the NLRC decision on October 27, 1994, and filed a motion for reconsideration by registered mail on November 26, 1994. The NLRC did not receive this motion, and a writ of execution was issued as the decision was considered final and executory.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC decision dated September 16, 1994, had attained finality. Whether a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper without first filing a motion for reconsideration.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The decision of the National Labor Relations Commission dated September 16, 1994, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the NLRC decision dated September 16, 1994, had attained finality: The Court held that the NLRC decision had attained finality. Section 14, Rule VII of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC mandates that an aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of any order, resolution, or decision of the NLRC. In this case, petitioner received the decision on October 27, 1994, giving it until November 6, 1994, to file its motion for reconsideration. The motion for reconsideration mailed on November 26, 1994, was filed well beyond the ten-day period provided by law. A motion for reconsideration filed out of time renders the decision sought to be reconsidered final and executory. Consequently, the decision of the NLRC in the case at bar had attained finality after the expiration of the reglementary period within which a motion for reconsideration may be filed. The Court cited Flores v. NLRC, 256 SCRA 735 (1996), in support of this principle. On whether a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper without first filing a motion for reconsideration: The Court reiterated that before certiorari under Rule 65 can be availed of, a motion for reconsideration must first be filed. This is an indispensable step to enable the tribunal, board, or office, in this case, the NLRC, to pass upon and correct its mistakes without the intervention of a higher court. The Court cited PNCC v. NLRC, 245 SCRA 668 (1995), and Gonpu Services Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111897 (January 27, 1997). The failure to file a motion for reconsideration is considered a fatal infirmity, as certiorari will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The motion for reconsideration is the plain and adequate remedy expressly provided by law. Petitioner's inaction or negligence deprived the NLRC of the opportunity to correct any error. Since the assailed decision was indisputably final and executory, its merits could no longer be examined to determine the existence of grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court will not lie if a motion for reconsideration, which is an adequate remedy, has not been filed within the reglementary period, rendering the assailed decision final and executory.