Manila Pearl Corporation v. Manila Pearl Independent Workers Union
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a petition for certification election filed by the Manila Pearl Independent Workers Union. Manila Pearl Corporation, the employer, opposed this, alleging that votes from sub-contractual, supervisory, dismissed, and resigned employees were improperly excluded from the election results. The Med-Arbiter initially dismissed the company's protest, ordering the challenged votes to be opened, counted, and included in the election tally. 2. Procedural History: Following the Med-Arbiter's dismissal of its protest, Manila Pearl Corporation appealed to the Office of the Secretary of Labor. The Undersecretary of Labor affirmed the Med-Arbiter's order on June 23, 1999, dismissing the company's appeal. Subsequently, Manila Pearl Corporation filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on September 10, 1999. The Court of Appeals dismissed this petition, finding it was filed late and noting evidence of tampering with the date of receipt of the Undersecretary's resolution. 3. The Petition: This case is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Manila Pearl Corporation assails the Court of Appeals' Resolutions dated February 15, 2000, and April 10, 2000. The company contends that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing its petition for certiorari on the grounds of being filed late. The respondent union maintains that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari as not seasonably filed. Whether the petitioner was required to file a motion for reconsideration as a precondition to filing a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 in connection with a Decision or Resolution of the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment. Whether the June 23, 1999 Resolution of the Undersecretary became final and executory such that its merits are no longer subject to review.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Resolutions dated February 15, 2000 and April 10, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 54854 are AFFIRMED IN TOTO. Costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari as not seasonably filed: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal because the petition for certiorari was filed beyond the sixty (60) day reglementary period prescribed under Section 4 of Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as applied to the case. The Court accepted the appellate court's factual finding that the date of receipt of the Secretary's Resolution was July 7, 1999, and noted the visible tampering that suggested the documents were altered to indicate a later receipt date. The Court reiterated that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and that strict compliance with procedural requisites, including filing periods, is required; thus lateness is fatal. Applying Manila Midtown Hotels & Land Corp. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 118397), the Court emphasized that failure to observe time periods for extraordinary remedies precludes relief. Consequently, because the petition was filed five days late, the appellate court did not err in dismissing it. On Whether the petitioner was required to file a motion for reconsideration as a precondition to certiorari: The Court applied its prior ruling in National Federation of Labor v. Laguesma and held that the remedy of an aggrieved party in a Decision or Resolution of the Secretary of DOLE is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a precondition before seeking further remedies, and then to seasonably file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court reasoned that Section 15, Rule XI of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code explicitly contemplates a period for the Secretary to decide and states that the decision "shall be final and executory." The requirement to file a motion for reconsideration serves both to give the Secretary the opportunity to correct errors and to narrow issues for judicial review. The Court found that petitioner failed to file such a motion seasonably, which rendered the Secretary's decision final and executory and foreclosed relief by certiorari. The Court therefore concluded that the procedural precondition was not satisfied and that review on the merits was foreclosed. On Whether the Secretary's Resolution became final and executory: The Court held that because petitioner did not comply with the mandatory procedural step of timely filing a motion for reconsideration, the Secretary's Resolution of June 23, 1999 became final and executory under Section 15, Rule XI of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code. The Court explained that finality attaches when the prescribed administrative remedies are not seasonably pursued, and that once finality attaches the records must be remanded to the office of origin for implementation. The Court noted that finality of the Secretary's decision bars further review of the merits except in cases where a proper court order restrains implementation. The Court thus refused to entertain substantive reconsideration and affirmed the lower court's dismissal on procedural grounds. The dispositive consequence was that the merits could no longer be examined in a certiorari petition filed out of time.
Main Doctrine
Failure to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period renders the Department of Labor and Employment Secretary's decision final and executory; a special civil action for certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that must be seasonably filed in strict compliance with the rules.