Nippon Paint Employees Union v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute arose from collective bargaining negotiations between the Nippon Paint Employees Union (NPEU) and Nippon Paint Phils., Inc. (NPPI). Following a deadlock, NPEU filed a notice of strike. During this period, Adonis Guansing, Secretary of NPEU, was interviewed by the Philippine Daily Inquirer. In the published interview, Guansing made statements regarding NPPI's market share, profitability, and management, which NPPI deemed detrimental to its interests and in violation of company rules against engaging in activities conflicting with the company's interests. 2. Procedural History: As a consequence of the interview, NPPI issued a memorandum to Guansing demanding an explanation for his statements. After Guansing submitted his reply and NPPI's attempt to convene a conference failed, NPPI terminated Guansing's employment. Guansing, through NPEU, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The parties agreed to submit the dispute to voluntary arbitration. Voluntary Arbitrator Bernardino Volante ruled in favor of NPPI, finding the dismissal legal, but awarded P40,000.00 to Guansing on grounds of compassionate justice. NPEU, on behalf of Guansing, then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition. This led to the present petition before the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The petitioner, Nippon Paint Employees Union (NPEU), seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. NPEU contends that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing its Rule 65 petition. The Court of Appeals had ruled that a Rule 65 petition was an improper mode of appeal from a voluntary arbitrator's decision, asserting that a Rule 43 petition for review was the correct procedural vehicle. NPEU argues that the Court of Appeals should not have dismissed its petition, implying that the dismissal was an error of law or grave abuse of discretion, despite the established rule that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal and that decisions of voluntary arbitrators are appealable under Rule 43.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 as an improper mode of appeal, considering the availability of appeal under Rule 43. Whether a voluntary arbitrator's decision is appealable via Rule 65 or Rule 43, and whether certiorari can be a substitute for a lost appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, dismissing the petition. The Court held that the proper mode of appeal from a voluntary arbitrator's decision is a petition for review under Rule 43, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The use of an erroneous mode of appeal is a ground for dismissal, as certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the mode of appeal: The Court reiterated that decisions of voluntary arbitrators, who partake of the nature of "quasi-judicial instrumentalities," fall within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 43, Section 1, clearly states that the Rule shall apply to appeals from awards, judgments, final orders, or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency, including voluntary arbitrators. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that a petition for review under Rule 43 was the appropriate remedy, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. On certiorari as a substitute for a lost appeal: The Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy that lies only when there is "no appeal, or no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." It is elementary in remedial law that the use of an erroneous mode of appeal is a cause for dismissal. The petition filed by NPEU was filed 45 days after the expiration of the 15-day reglementary period for filing a Rule 43 appeal, clearly indicating its use as a substitute for a lost appeal. The Court found no compelling reason to disregard the Rules of Court, as NPEU failed to provide any valid or compelling circumstances warranting such deviation. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The erroneous mode of appeal, such as filing a Rule 65 petition when a Rule 43 appeal is the proper remedy, is a ground for dismissal.