Aquino v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ma. Salvacion G. Aquino, a professor at St. Paul's College of Manila for 22 years, verbally accepted a summer teaching load for 1998. She subsequently sought to alter her schedule to accommodate a trip to the United States to care for her brother's children. Despite her department chairperson and the college registrar advising her to secure approval from the college dean and president, Sister Natividad De Jesus Ferraren, petitioner left a letter requesting the schedule change only on April 25, 1998, the day before her departure. This was after a memorandum reminding teachers of disciplinary action for non-compliance with schedules. The college, citing policy that only the president/dean can approve schedule changes, required petitioner to show cause why she should not be disciplined for taking leave without approval, abandonment, fraud, breach of trust, failure to observe contractual obligations, misconduct, and insubordination. Procedural History: Petitioner failed to attend the start of the school year and a faculty seminar, and did not initially respond to the show-cause memorandum. She later submitted a written compliance admitting the schedule change without prior approval but claiming attempts to seek it earlier. She then verbally requested early retirement, which the college agreed to facilitate by removing her from the payroll and computing her benefits. However, petitioner failed to submit a written retirement request. The college proceeded with an administrative hearing on the charges. Petitioner initially agreed to attend but then refused, demanding reinstatement. The investigating committee found her guilty of the charges but recommended allowing her early retirement and payment of benefits. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of salaries with the Labor Arbiter, who ruled in her favor. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision on appeal. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC's decision, leading to the present petition. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the NLRC's dismissal of her illegal dismissal complaint. She filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, raising issues regarding the CA's affirmation of the NLRC's findings on early retirement, illegal dismissal, personal liability of Sister Ferraren, and the denial of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. The Supreme Court noted that petitioner's proper recourse should have been a petition for review under Rule 45, as certiorari under Rule 65 is for jurisdictional errors and not for correcting factual findings or errors of law, especially when an appeal is available. Furthermore, petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration with the CA before filing the petition. The Court found that the issues raised were primarily questions of fact, which are generally beyond the scope of review under Rule 65 and even Rule 45, and that the NLRC's factual findings, affirmed by the CA, were well-substantiated and did not demonstrate grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC's finding that the private respondents have granted the petitioner an early retirement. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC's finding that the private respondents have not illegally dismissed the petitioner and hence not entitled to reinstatement with backwages and without loss of seniority rights and other benefits appertaining to her position. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC's finding that Sister Ferraren cannot be held personally liable for the petitioner's claims. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in not awarding moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees to the petitioner.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED, and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy (Certiorari under Rule 65) and the nature of the issues raised: The Supreme Court sustained the private respondents' contention that the petitioner erroneously resorted to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court emphasized that certiorari is available only when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Since the CA decision was a final judgment, the proper remedy would have been a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration with the CA before filing the petition for certiorari, which is a general rule requiring a party to give the lower court an opportunity to correct its errors. The Court noted that certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. Even if the procedural error were overlooked, the petition would still fail because the issues raised were primarily questions of fact. The Court reiterated that a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law, while a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is confined to jurisdictional issues, specifically acts done without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court cannot correct errors of fact committed by lower courts or tribunals in a certiorari proceeding. The Court's review power in certiorari is limited to determining if the tribunal acted capriciously or whimsically, amounting to an evasion of duty or a virtual refusal to perform a legal duty. On the findings of fact by the NLRC and CA: The Court held that factual findings of agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions, such as the NLRC, are accorded respect and even finality. This deference is due to their expertise and the Court's role as essentially not a trier of facts. The Court found no indication of grave abuse of discretion in the proceedings below, stating that the findings of fact were well-substantiated by the evidence and fully supported the decisions of the NLRC and CA. Therefore, the Court saw no reason to disturb these findings. On the substantive issues (illegal dismissal, retirement, liability): Although the Court dismissed the petition on procedural grounds, its affirmation of the CA and NLRC decisions implicitly upholds their findings that the petitioner was not illegally dismissed, that an early retirement was effectively granted and accepted, and that Sister Ferraren was not personally liable. The Court's refusal to delve into the factual merits, due to the improper remedy and the nature of the issues, means it did not find a grave abuse of discretion that would warrant overturning the lower tribunals' factual conclusions regarding the circumstances of the petitioner's separation from employment. On the matter of damages and attorney's fees: The Court's decision not to award moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees aligns with its overall finding that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA. Since the Court upheld the CA's decision, which in turn affirmed the NLRC's findings, the denial of these additional claims is a logical consequence of the procedural and substantive determinations made in the case.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for an appeal under Rule 45, and a motion for reconsideration must generally be filed before resorting to certiorari, especially when the issues raised are primarily factual.