Veloso v. China Airlines, Ltd.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Rebecca R. Veloso was employed as supervisor of the ticketing section at the Manila branch office of respondent China Airlines Ltd. (CAL). On October 29, 1986, CAL, through respondent K.Y. Chang, informed petitioner and her three assistants that the ticketing section would be temporarily closed to prevent losses, leading to their temporary lay-off. Subsequently, CAL decided to permanently close the section, informing petitioner and her staff on November 5, 1986, that their lay-off would be permanent, effective one month from receipt of notice. A notice of retrenchment was filed with the labor department on November 11, 1986. Petitioner was advised to claim her retirement pay and benefits. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner wrote to respondent Chang assailing the validity of her termination. Procedural History: On July 1, 1987, petitioner filed a complaint with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal, seeking reinstatement, backwages, damages, and attorney's fees. Her three assistants filed a separate complaint, which was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter and sustained by the NLRC, finding the retrenchment valid. In a decision dated June 8, 1990, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, finding respondents guilty of unfair labor practice, declaring her dismissal illegal, and ordering reinstatement with backwages and damages totaling P4,326,520.00. Dissatisfied, respondents appealed to the NLRC. In a resolution dated January 2, 1992, the NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter's decision, finding no factual or legal basis for the unfair labor practice charge and declaring the retrenchment valid. The NLRC directed respondents to pay petitioner P428,895.04 as retrenchment pay. The Petition: Petitioner received the NLRC resolution on January 7, 1992. Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration, she filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Supreme Court, averring that a motion for reconsideration would be futile and would prejudice her right to a speedy and unbiased judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari should be dismissed for failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the National Labor Relations Commission. Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the Labor Arbiter's decision, considering the petition for certiorari was filed without a prior motion for reconsideration.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed. The Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission dated January 2, 1992, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural issue of failing to file a motion for reconsideration: The Court held that the precipitate filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 without first moving for reconsideration of the assailed resolution warrants the outright dismissal of the case. It is a well-settled jurisprudence that a motion for reconsideration is indispensable as it affords the NLRC an opportunity to rectify errors or mistakes it might have committed before resort to the courts can be had. Certiorari will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, the plain and adequate remedy expressly provided by law is a motion for reconsideration of the impugned resolution, to be made under oath and filed within ten (10) days from receipt of the questioned resolution of the NLRC, a procedure which is jurisdictional. Hence, the filing of the petition for certiorari was patently violative of prevailing jurisprudence and could not prosper without undue damage to the fundamental doctrine that undergirds the grant of this prerogative writ. Furthermore, without a motion for reconsideration seasonably filed within the ten-day reglementary period, an order, decision, or resolution of the NLRC becomes final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof. The resolution of the NLRC had become final and executory on January 17, 1992, insofar as petitioner was concerned, because she admitted under oath having received notice thereof on January 7, 1992. Consequently, the merits of her case could no longer be reviewed to determine if the public respondent might be faulted for grave abuse of discretion, as alleged in her petition. Thus, the Court had no recourse but to sustain the respondent's position on jurisdictional and other grounds, that the petition ought not to be given due course and the case should be dismissed for lack of merit. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: Because the petition for certiorari was filed without a motion for reconsideration, the NLRC's resolution had become final and executory. Consequently, the merits of the case could no longer be reviewed to determine if the public respondent might be faulted for grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against a resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) must be preceded by a motion for reconsideration filed within the reglementary period, as this is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Failure to do so renders the NLRC resolution final and executory, precluding a review of its merits by the Supreme Court.