Samahan v. Bacungan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In 1995 and 1996, Mario Dacles and Teodoro Valencia were hired as glass cleaners by City Service Corporation (CSC) for service at Hyatt Regency Manila (Hyatt). In April 1998, Hyatt hired Amelia Dalmacio and Renato Dazo as florist/sales clerk and helper/driver, respectively. After their initial contracts expired, they continued working and signed new contracts with Hyatt. The labor union at Hyatt questioned the employment status of Dacles, Valencia, Dalmacio, and Dazo, asserting they were regular employees. Hyatt contended that Dacles and Valencia were employees of CSC, an independent contractor, and that Dalmacio and Dazo were project employees whose employment was tied to the flower shop's existence. In September 1999, Hyatt dismissed Dacles and Valencia due to the termination of the service contract with CSC. Procedural History: The dispute between the union and Hyatt over the employment status of the four individuals was initially submitted to grievance machinery. Failing to resolve the issue, the parties agreed to voluntary arbitration, appointing Dean Froilan Bacungan as the arbitrator. On January 11, 2000, the voluntary arbitrator ruled that Dacles and Valencia were employees of CSC and not Hyatt, and that Dalmacio and Dazo, while employees of Hyatt, could be terminated upon the closure of the flower shop. The union moved for reconsideration, which was denied. Subsequently, the union filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, citing procedural defects, including the use of the wrong remedy (certiorari instead of petition for review), insufficient docket fees, and failure to attach a certified true copy of the motion for reconsideration. The appellate court also noted that even if treated as a petition for review, it was filed out of time. The Petition: The petitioner union filed the instant petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' resolutions. The union argued that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that a petition for review under Rule 43 was the appropriate remedy to assail a voluntary arbitrator's decision, contending that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 was the correct recourse. The union based this argument on the similarity of voluntary arbitrator decisions to those of the NLRC and the Secretary of Labor, which are not appealable under Rule 43, and on Section 2 of Rule 43, which exempts certain labor-related decisions from its scope. The Supreme Court, however, denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision and reiterating that decisions of voluntary arbitrators are appealable to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 43, citing established jurisprudence.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the appropriate remedy for assailing the decision of the respondent voluntary arbitrator is an appeal by petition for review under Rule 43 and not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition on the basis of the requirements set forth in Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; and whether the voluntary arbitrator's findings regarding the employment status of Mario Dacles, Teodoro Valencia, Amelia Dalmacio, and Renato Dazo were correct.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The resolutions dated November 16, 2000, and July 10, 2001, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 60959 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the proper remedy to assail a voluntary arbitrator's decision: The Court reiterated its ruling in Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees that decisions or awards of voluntary arbitrators are appealable to the Court of Appeals through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. This procedure is consistent with the original purpose of providing a uniform procedure for appellate review of adjudications of all quasi-judicial entities. The Court clarified that even with the exception in Section 2 of Rule 43, the ruling in Luzon Development Bank still stands, meaning decisions of voluntary arbitrators issued pursuant to the Labor Code do not fall within the exception. The Court emphasized that the use of an erroneous mode of appeal is a cause for dismissal, and a petition for certiorari cannot serve as a substitute for a lost appeal. In this case, the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period for a petition for review under Rule 43, making its dismissal by the CA proper. On the dismissal of the petition and the merits of the voluntary arbitrator's findings: The Court affirmed the voluntary arbitrator's findings that Mario Dacles and Teodoro Valencia were employees of CSC, an independent contractor, and not of respondent Hyatt. This was based on the absence of evidence to prove labor-only contracting, and their services were rendered pursuant to the cleaning service contract between Hyatt and CSC. The Court also affirmed the finding that Amelia Dalmacio and Renato Dazo were project employees whose employment could be terminated upon the closure of the flower shop, in accordance with their employment contracts. The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise, are generally accorded finality and are binding upon the Supreme Court, unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or arbitrary disregard of evidence.
Main Doctrine
The decision of a voluntary arbitrator is appealable to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The erroneous mode of appeal is a cause for dismissal, and a petition for certiorari cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal. Findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies are binding unless there is grave abuse of discretion or arbitrary disregard of evidence.