Lagera v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Joselito Lagera was employed as a security guard by Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) under a contract renewable monthly, contingent on passing company standards. On April 13, 1994, the vehicle transporting Lagera and other guards met an accident, causing injuries to the passengers. Following the incident, Lagera refused to cooperate with the company's investigation, citing a need to process the event and later claiming he was not in the proper state of mind to provide information. He also invoked "no comment" when asked to explain why his employment should be renewed. 2. Procedural History: Based on Lagera's lack of cooperation and refusal to explain his conduct, PNCC recommended the non-renewal of his employment, leading to his separation from the service effective May 1, 1994. Lagera subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of salary with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Lagera, finding PNCC guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering reinstatement with backwages and other monetary benefits. However, upon appeal by PNCC, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, declaring Lagera's dismissal valid, though it ordered PNCC to indemnify Lagera in the amount of P1,000.00 and affirmed his entitlement to unpaid wages and proportionate 13th-month pay. 3. The Petition: Aggrieved by the NLRC's decision, Lagera filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in reversing the Labor Arbiter's ruling. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the petition, holding that Lagera's failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was a procedural defect that warranted the outright dismissal of the case. The Court emphasized that a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable remedy to allow the NLRC an opportunity to correct its errors before resort to judicial action can be made, and that failure to do so renders the NLRC decision final and executory.
Issue(s)
Whether the precipitate filing of a special civil action for certiorari without first filing a motion for reconsideration warrants the dismissal of the case. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter's decision, considering the finality of the NLRC decision due to the lack of a timely motion for reconsideration.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED, and the assailed DECISION of the NLRC is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural issue of filing a motion for reconsideration: The Supreme Court held that the precipitate filing of a special civil action for certiorari without first moving for reconsideration of the assailed judgment of the NLRC warrants the outright dismissal of the case. The Court consistently held 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 against acts of public respondent. In this case, the plain and adequate remedy expressly provided by law was a motion for reconsideration of the impugned decision, based on palpable or patent errors, to be made under oath and filed within ten (10) days from receipt of the questioned judgment of the NLRC, a procedure which is jurisdictional. Hence, the original action of certiorari will not prosper. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the finality of the NLRC decision: The Court further stated that not having filed a motion for reconsideration within the ten-day reglementary period, the questioned order, resolution, or decision of the NLRC becomes final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof. Consequently, as regards the petitioner, the decision of the NLRC became final and executory on December 7, 1995. Thus, the merits of the case could no longer be reviewed to determine if the respondent NLRC could be faulted of grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
A special civil action for certiorari will not prosper if a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC's decision was not filed, as this remedy is considered plain, speedy, and adequate, and its absence renders the NLRC decision final and executory.