Manila Midtown Hotel v. Borromeo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Manila Midtown Hotel Employees Labor Union (MMHELU-NUWHRAIN) filed a complaint with the Office of the Voluntary Arbitrator against Manila Midtown Hotel (petitioner) for illegal dismissal of union members. The Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) ruled that respondents Rowena Cao, Angelita Ignacio, Jesus Viray, and Renato Manaois were illegally dismissed and ordered their reinstatement with backwages, moral and actual damages, and attorney's fees. Procedural History: Petitioner initially filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with the VA, alleging lack of jurisdiction. Upon denial, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed. This Court also denied petitioner's subsequent petition for review on certiorari. Subsequently, the VA issued a writ of execution for the January 15, 1998 Decision. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, instead of a petition for review, assailing the VA's Decision. The CA affirmed the VA's Decision. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision to sustain the VA's issuance of a writ of execution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the Voluntary Arbitrator’s issuance of a writ of execution. Whether the Voluntary Arbitrator’s Decision dated January 15, 1998, had become final and executory.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated January 18, 1999, and Resolution dated April 19, 1999, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 48543 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the Voluntary Arbitrator’s issuance of a writ of execution: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err. The Court emphasized that upon receipt of the Voluntary Arbitrator's Decision, the petitioner should have filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals within the 15-day reglementary period as provided by Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Instead, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, which is not a substitute for a lapsed appeal. The Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be availed of to cure the failure to file an appeal within the prescribed period. Therefore, the CA correctly sustained the VA's order for execution. On the issue of whether the Voluntary Arbitrator’s Decision dated January 15, 1998, had become final and executory: The Supreme Court affirmed that the Voluntary Arbitrator's Decision had become final and executory. According to Article 262-A of the Labor Code, as amended, the award or decision of a Voluntary Arbitrator becomes final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the copy by the parties. Since the petitioner failed to file a timely petition for review, the decision attained finality. The Court cited Alviado vs. MJG General Merchandize, stating that the finality of a decision is a jurisdictional event that cannot depend on the convenience of a party and that such a definitive judgment is no longer subject to change, revision, amendment, or reversal. Once a decision becomes final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the tribunal to order its execution, and this order is not appealable.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lapsed appeal. When a decision becomes final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the tribunal to order its execution, and such order is not appealable.