Asayas v. Sea Power Shipping Enterprises
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Wilfredo P. Asayas was employed as Third Officer by respondent Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. on board the M/T Samaria. On October 25, 2009, prior to the contract's expiration, the vessel was sold, leading to Asayas' discharge. He was repatriated with a promise of reassignment, which did not materialize. Subsequently, he was engaged as Second Mate on the M/T Kriti Akti, but this vessel was also sold on April 8, 2010, before his deployment, and he was not deployed to complete his contract. Procedural History: Asayas filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) on April 23, 2010, which was settled through a compromise agreement and quitclaim. Two months later, he filed another complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of the unexpired portion of his contract. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of Asayas, declaring the termination illegal and ordering payment of salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract plus attorney's fees, reasoning that the employer failed to prove a valid cause for termination and that the compromise agreement did not cover termination disputes. The LA's decision was served by registered mail but returned with a "Moved Out" notation. A writ of execution was issued and upheld by the LA despite respondents' motion to quash. Respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which dismissed the appeal, affirming the LA's order and presuming regularity in the service by registered mail. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The Petition: The CA granted the respondents' petition, reversed the NLRC's decision, annulled the LA's decision, and dismissed Asayas' complaint, ordering him to return amounts received. The CA found that the termination was in accordance with the POEA Standard Contract due to vessel sale and that Asayas had voluntarily executed a compromise agreement with quitclaim. The Supreme Court granted Asayas' petition for review on certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting the respondents' petition for certiorari. Whether the Labor Arbiter's decision had become final and executory, precluding modification by a higher court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition for review on certiorari, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of suit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in granting the respondents' petition for certiorari without a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On the issue of the finality of the Labor Arbiter's decision: The LA's decision was served by registered mail and returned "Moved Out." The NLRC correctly presumed the regularity of service in the absence of proof to the contrary, especially since the respondents later provided a new address. Service by registered mail is deemed complete five days after the copy is returned to the sender, even if the addressee did not actually receive it. With the service being complete, the respondents had ten calendar days from the return of the mail to appeal, as per the Labor Code. Since they did not appeal within this period, the LA's decision became final and executory. A final and executory decision can no longer be modified, directly or indirectly, by any court. The CA's act of reviewing the merits of the case and annulling the LA's decision, which had attained finality, was an unwarranted intrusion and constituted a disregard of the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment. The CA's finding that the termination was legal and that the quitclaim was valid was a review of the merits, which was impermissible once the LA's decision had become final and executory. The respondents' failure to timely appeal meant that the LA's finding of illegal dismissal was no longer subject to review.
Main Doctrine
A decision that has become final and executory can no longer be modified directly or indirectly by any court, and a petition for certiorari will not lie to question it absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.