Davao Merchant Marine Academy v. Garcia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Alma E. Garcia was hired by petitioner Davao Merchant Marine Academy (DMMA) as a contractual employee for several semesters. Her contracts stipulated definite terms of employment. In June 1995, DMMA presented a new salary computation formula which, contrary to assurances, resulted in a diminution of teachers' salaries. Garcia questioned this and was subsequently informed that her employment would end on October 31, 1995, despite prior assurances of continued employment. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter dismissed Garcia's complaint, ruling that she was a temporary employee under a valid fixed-term contract. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this, holding that the fixed-term contracts circumvented security of tenure and were contrary to law and public policy. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC's decision. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners sought to set aside the CA decision, arguing that Garcia's fixed-term employment contract met the standards set in Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora. They invoked grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail the decision of the Court of Appeals. Whether the fixed-term employment contracts were valid and did not violate the security of tenure of the private respondent.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Court ruled that the proper remedy to assail the decision of the Court of Appeals was an appeal under Rule 45, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Since the period to appeal had lapsed due to petitioners' erroneous choice of remedy, the CA decision became final and executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy (Issue 1): The Court held that petitioners failed to show the absence of an appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, which is a prerequisite for a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court reiterated that Rule 45 provides the remedy for appealing decisions, final orders, or resolutions of the CA to the Supreme Court. Petitioners' allegation of grave abuse of discretion did not justify the use of certiorari as a substitute for a lapsed appeal. The Court emphasized that certiorari cannot be made a substitute for a lost appeal, especially when the loss is due to the petitioner's own neglect or error in choosing the remedy, citing Federation of Free Workers v. Inciong. On the validity of the fixed-term employment contracts (Issue 2): While the Court dismissed the petition on procedural grounds, it acknowledged the substantive issue concerning the validity of fixed-term employment contracts. The Court noted that the CA had already ruled that the fixed-term contracts did not meet the standards laid down in Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora, implying that the substantive issue would have likely been resolved against the petitioners had the proper remedy been pursued. The NLRC had found that the contracts circumvented security of tenure and that Garcia was not on equal footing with DMMA when she agreed to the terms, especially considering she was made to sign them after classes had started and when it was difficult to find other employment. Furthermore, the NLRC found no truth to the claim that Garcia was hired solely for chemistry subjects offered only in the first semester, as she taught other subjects and was scheduled for chemistry laboratory classes in the second semester.
Main Doctrine
A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be used as a substitute for a lapsed appeal under Rule 45, especially when the loss of the right to appeal is due to the petitioner's own neglect or error in the choice of remedy.