Del Monte Land Transport Bus Co. v. Abergos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Carlito T. Abergos (Abergos) filed a complaint for constructive dismissal against Del Monte Land Transport Bus Company (DLTB Co.) and Narciso Morales (Morales), alleging that he was hired as a bus driver on September 12, 2011. On August 28, 2016, while driving a DLTB Co. bus, passengers became angry and confused due to a change in ferry schedules, leading to their boarding a later trip. Abergos was summoned to explain, submitted a written explanation, and was subsequently handed a memorandum suspending him for fifteen (15) days. Upon reporting back for work on September 16, 2016, he was informed of his dismissal. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) declared Abergos' dismissal illegal and ordered DLTB Co. and Morales to pay backwages, separation pay, and attorney's fees. Abergos appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) regarding the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. The NLRC modified the LA's decision, ordering reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and privileges, and deleting the award of separation pay. DLTB Co. sought reconsideration, presenting a list of Abergos' alleged infractions and arguing that reinstatement was not in the best interest of the parties. The NLRC granted the motion for reconsideration, reinstating the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, plus backwages and attorney's fees. Abergos then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) without first filing a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC's Resolution dated May 24, 2017. The Petition: The CA granted Abergos' petition, reversing the NLRC's Resolution and reinstating its earlier Decision ordering reinstatement. DLTB Co. and Morales filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's Decision and Resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA erred in entertaining Abergos' petition for certiorari despite his failure to move for the reconsideration of the NLRC's Resolution dated May 24, 2017. Whether the CA erred in reversing the NLRC's award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. Whether there exists a supervening event that rendered the CA's directive of reinstatement impossible.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the Resolution dated May 24, 2017 of the National Labor Relations Commission. The Labor Arbiter was directed to recompute the monetary awards, including interest, following the guidelines in the Decision, if still unpaid.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of entertaining the petition for certiorari without a prior motion for reconsideration: The Court held that a motion for reconsideration is generally an indispensable condition to the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Abergos failed to file such a motion and did not provide any justification for this omission, nor did he demonstrate that his case fell under any of the recognized exceptions to this rule. The CA erred in not dismissing the petition outright for failure to comply with this procedural requirement. The Court emphasized that certiorari is a prerogative writ and must be applied for strictly in accordance with the rules, and litigants cannot unilaterally decide to dispense with mandatory procedural steps without valid reasons. The CA's failure to address this procedural defect and proceeding to rule on the merits was deemed an error. On the issue of reversing the NLRC's award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement: Even if the procedural defect were overlooked, the Court found that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it received evidence on appeal regarding strained relations. The NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence on appeal, as technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases, and the Labor Code mandates the use of every reasonable means to ascertain facts. The petitioners (DLTB Co. and Morales) had not appealed the LA's initial award of separation pay, effectively admitting liability. However, when the NLRC modified the LA's decision to order reinstatement, the petitioners timely submitted evidence to support their claim of strained relations. The Court found that this evidence, when considered by the NLRC, supported its ruling on the existence of strained relations, justifying the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. On the issue of a supervening event: The Court found no merit in the petitioners' argument regarding a supervening event. The alleged supervening event occurred in 2019, which was two years after the NLRC Resolution had attained finality. Therefore, it could not be considered a supervening event that would affect the finality of the NLRC's Resolution.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is generally not the proper remedy when a motion for reconsideration of the assailed resolution or order has not been filed, as such motion is considered a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, unless specific exceptions apply.