Sim vs. NLRC | G.R. No. 157376. October 2, 2007
Case: CORAZON C. SIM, Petitioner, versus NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and EQUITABLE PCI-BANK, Respondents. [i]
G.R. No. 157376 | 2007-10-02
Ponente: AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Topics: Certiorari; Motions for Reconsideration; Questions of Law and Questions of Fact; Labor Law; Dismissals; Loss of Trust and Confidence; Managerial Employees; Jurisdictions;
Doctrines:
(1) A
prior motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition to the filing of
a special civil action for certiorari; There are, of course, exceptions to the
foregoing rule, to wit:
(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a
quo has no jurisdiction;
(b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings
have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as
those raised and passed upon in the lower court;
(c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the
question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government
or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable;
(d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration
would be useless;
(e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is
extreme urgency for relief;
(f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is
urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable;
(g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for
lack of due process;
(h) where the proceeding was ex parte or in which the petitioner
had no opportunity to object; and
(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public
interest is involved.
(2) The petitioner may not arrogate to himself
the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or
not—to dispense with the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration,
petitioner must show a concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing so;
(3)
There is a question of fact when doubt or difference arises as to the truth or
falsehood of the alleged facts, and there is a question of law where the doubt
or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts;
(4) When
an employee accepts a promotion to a managerial position or to an office
requiring full trust and confidence, she gives up some of the rigid guaranties
available to ordinary workers—infractions which if committed by others would be
overlooked or condoned or penalties mitigated may be visited with more severe
disciplinary action
(5) It
was wrong for the Labor Arbiter to rule that “labor relations system in the
Philippines has no extraterritorial jurisdiction.”
(6) Labor
arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising from
employer-employee relations, including termination disputes involving all
workers, among whom are overseas Filipino workers
FACTS:
Petitioner filed a case for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter, alleging that she was initially employed by respondent [ii] as Italian Remittance Marketing Consultant to the Frankfurt Representative Office.
Eventually, she was promoted to Manager Position. [iii]
Sometime in 1999 Petitioner received a letter from Remegio David [iv] informing her that she was being dismissed due to loss of trust and confidence based on alleged mismanagement and misappropriation of funds.
Respondent denied any employer-employee relationship between them, and sought the dismissal of the complaint. However, [v] Labor Arbiter rendered its Decision dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction and/or lack of merit, stressing that “the labor relations system in the Philippines has no extra-territorial jurisdiction.”
Labor Arbiter’s Decision: -------------Ã ([vi])
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's Decision and dismissed petitioner's appeal for lack of merit.
Without filing a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC, petitioner went to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
In a Resolution, [vii] the CA dismissed the petition due to petitioner's non-filing of a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was nonetheless denied by the CA per Resolution dated February 26, 2003.
Hence, the present recourse under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioners allegations -------Ã ([viii])
ISSUES:
(1) WON petitioner should
have first filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the National Labor Relations
Commission. -YES
(2) WON the filing a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC
would be merely an exercise in futility and useless. – NO
(3) WON issue at bench is purely
a question of law, hence, an exception to the rule. – NO
(4) WON the Labor Arbiter have any jurisdiction over the case or
WON labor arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising
from employer-employee relations, including termination disputes involving all
workers, among whom are overseas Filipino workers, - YES
HELD:
(1)
YES
Under Rule 65, the remedy of filing a special civil action for
certiorari is available only when there is no appeal; or any plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. [ix] A
"plain" and "adequate remedy" is a motion for
reconsideration of the assailed order or resolution, the filing of which is an
indispensable condition to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari.
[x] This is
to give the lower court the opportunity to correct itself. [xi]
There are, of course, exceptions to the foregoing rule, to wit:
(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a
quo has no jurisdiction;
(b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings
have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as
those raised and passed upon in the lower court;
(c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the
question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government
or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable;
(d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration
would be useless;
(e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is
extreme urgency for relief;
(f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is
urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable;
(g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for
lack of due process;
(h) where the proceeding was ex parte or in which the petitioner
had no opportunity to object; and
(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public
interest is involved. [xii]
Petitioner,
however, failed to qualify her case as among the few exceptions. In
fact, the Court notes that the petition filed before the CA failed to allege
any reason why a motion for reconsideration was dispensed with by petitioner.
It was only in her motion for reconsideration of the CA's resolution of
dismissal and in the petition filed in this case that petitioner justified her
non-filing of a motion for reconsideration.
(2)
NO
Petitioner argues that filing a motion for reconsideration with
the NLRC would be merely an exercise in futility and useless. But it is not for petitioner to
determine whether it is so. As stressed in Cervantes v. Court of
Appeals:
It must be emphasized that a writ of
certiorari is a prerogative writ, never demandable as a matter of right, never
issued except in the exercise of judicial discretion. Hence,
he who seeks a writ of certiorari must apply for it only in the manner and
strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and the Rules. Petitioner may not arrogate to himself
the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not.
To dispense with the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration,
petitioner must show a concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing so,
which petitioner failed to do. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed
the petition. [xiii]
(Emphasis supplied)
(3)
NO
Petitioner also contends that the issue at bench is purely a
question of law, hence, an exception to the rule. A reading of the petition
filed with the CA shows otherwise. The issues raised in this case are mixed
questions of fact and law. There is a question of fact when doubt or difference
arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts, and there is a
question of law where the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a
certain state of facts. [xiv]
Petitioner, aside from questioning the ruling of the NLRC
sustaining the Labor Arbiter's view that it does not have any jurisdiction over
the case, also questions the NLRC's ruling affirming the Labor Arbiter's
conclusion that she was validly dismissed by respondent. The legality of
petitioner's dismissal hinges on the question of whether there was an
employer-employee relationship, which was denied by respondent; and, if in the
affirmative, whether petitioner, indeed, committed a breach of trust and
confidence justifying her dismissal.
These are mixed questions of fact and law and, as such, do not fall within the
exception from the filing of a motion for reconsideration.
Consequently, the CA was not in error when it dismissed the
petition. More so since petitioner failed to show any error on the part of the
Labor Arbiter and the NLRC in ruling that she was dismissed for cause.
The rule is that the Court is bound by the findings of facts of
the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC, unless it is shown that grave abuse of
discretion or lack or excess of jurisdiction has been committed by said
quasi-judicial bodies. [xv] The
Court will not deviate from said doctrine without any clear showing that the
findings of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC, are bereft of
sufficient substantiation.
Petitioner does not deny having withdrawn the amount of
P3,000,000.00 lire from the bank's account. What petitioner submits is that she
used said amount for the Radio Pilipinas sa Roma radio program of the company.
Respondent, however, countered that at the time she withdrew said amount, the
radio program was already off the air. Respondent is a managerial employee.
Thus, loss of trust and confidence is a valid ground for her dismissal. [xvi] The mere existence of a basis for
believing that a managerial employee has breached the trust of the employer
would suffice for his/her dismissal. [xvii]
[w]hen an employee accepts a promotion to a managerial position
or to an office requiring full trust and confidence, she gives up some of the
rigid guaranties available to ordinary workers. Infractions which if committed
by others would be overlooked or condoned or penalties mitigated may be visited
with more severe disciplinary action. A company's resort to acts of
self-defense would be more easily justified. [xviii]
(4)
YES.
The Court notes, however, a palpable error in the Labor
Arbiter's disposition of the case, which was affirmed by the NLRC, with regard
to the issue on jurisdiction. It was
wrong for the Labor Arbiter to rule that "labor relations system in the
Philippines has no extra-territorial jurisdiction." [xix]
Article 217 of the Labor Code provides for the jurisdiction of
the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission, viz.: ---------Ã ([xx])
Moreover, Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, or the
Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, [xxi]provides:
---------Ã ([xxii])
Also, Section 62 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing
R.A. No. 8042 [xxiii]
provides that the Labor Arbiters of the NLRC shall have the original and
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all claims arising out of
employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving
Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages, subject to the rules and procedures of
the NLRC.
Under these provisions, it is clear that labor arbiters have
original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising from employer-employee
relations, including termination disputes involving all workers, among whom are
overseas Filipino workers. [xxiv] In
Philippine National Bank v. Cabansag, the Court pronounced:
x x x
Whether employed locally or overseas, all Filipino workers enjoy the protective
mantle of Philippine labor and social legislation, contract stipulations to the
contrary notwithstanding. This pronouncement is in keeping with the basic
public policy of the State to afford protection to labor, promote full
employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed,
and regulate the relations between workers and employers. For the State assures
the basic rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining,
security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work [Article 3 of the
Labor Code of the Philippines; See also Section 18, Article II and Section 3,
Article XIII, 1987 Constitution]. This ruling is likewise rendered imperative by
Article 17 of the Civil Code which states that laws "which have for their
object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered
ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determination or
conventions agreed upon in a foreign country." [xxv]
(Emphasis supplied)
In any event, since the CA did not commit any error in
dismissing the petition before it for failure to file a prior motion for
reconsideration with the NLRC, and considering that the Labor Arbiter and the
NLRC's factual findings as regards the validity of petitioner's dismissal are
accorded great weight and respect and even finality when the same are supported
by substantial evidence, the Court finds no compelling reason to relax the rule
on the filing of a motion for reconsideration prior to the filing of a petition
for certiorari.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED.
[i] The
Court of Appeals, impleaded as respondent, is deleted from the caption per
Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[ii] in 1990
[iii] September
1999
[iv]
the
Senior Officer, European Head of PCI Bank, and Managing Director of PCIB-
Europe –
[v] On
September 3, 2001,
[vi] According to the Labor Arbiter:
It should be stressed at this juncture that the labor relations
system in the Philippines has no extra-territorial jurisdiction. It is limited
to the relationship between labor and capital within the Philippines. Since
complainant was hired and assigned in a foreign land, although by a Philippine
Corporation, it follows that the law that govern their relationship is the law
of the place where the employment was executed and her place of work or
assignment. On this premise, the Italian law allegedly provides severance pay
which was applied and extended to herein complainant [vi]
As can be gleaned from the foregoing, a further elucidation on
the matter would be an exercise in futility. Hence, this case should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Assuming for the sake of argument that this Office has
jurisdiction over this case, still, this Office is inclined to rule in favor of
the respondent.
Complainant,
as General Manager is an employee whom the respondent company reposed its trust
and confidence. In other words, she held a position of trust. It is
well-settled doctrine that the basic premise for dismissal on the ground of
loss of confidence is that the employee concerned holds a position of trust and
confidence. (National Sugar Refineries Corporation vs. NLRC, 286 SCRA 478.)
In this case, the respondent company had strong reason to
believe that the complainant was guilty of the offense charged against her.
[vii] dated October 29, 2002,
[viii]
Petitioner
alleges that:
I. The
Court of Appeals departed from the accepted and usual concepts of remedial law
when it ruled that the petitioner should have first filed a Motion for
Reconsideration with the National Labor Relations Commission.
II. The
National Labor Relations Commission decided a question of jurisdiction
heretofore not yet determined by the Court and decided the same in a manner not
in accord with law when it ruled that it had no jurisdiction over a labor
dispute between a Philippine corporation and its employee which it assigned to
work for a foreign land.
[ix] Rules of Court, Rule 65, Section 1.
[x] Cervantes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 166755, November 18, 2005, 475 SCRA 562, 569.
[xi] Abacan v. Northwestern University, Inc., G.R. No. 140777, April 8, 2005, 455 SCRA 136, 148.
[xii] Abacan v. Northwestern University, Inc., id. at 149.
[xiii] Cervantes v. Court of Appeals, supra note 8, at 570.
[xiv] Cano v. Galvante, 440 Phil. 821, 825-826 (2002).
[xv] Nueva Ecija Electric Cooperative II v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 157603, June 23, 2005, 461 SCRA 169, 182
[xvi] Philippine
Long Distance Company v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 143171, September 21, 2004, 438
SCRA 555, 560.
[xvii] Community Rural Bank of San Isidro (N.E.), Inc. v. Paez, G.R. No. 158707, November 27, 2006, 508 SCRA 245, 259.
[xviii] Philippine Long Distance Company case, supra note 14, at 560
[xix]
CA
rollo, p. 64.
[xx] ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor
Arbiters and the Commission. –
(a)
Except as otherwise provided under this Code the Labor Arbiters shall have
original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30)
calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision
without extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following
cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:
1. Unfair labor practice cases;
2. Termination disputes;
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases
that workers may file involving wage, rates of pay, hours of work and other
terms and conditions of employment;
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of
damages arising from the employer-employee relations;
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code,
including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts; and
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security,
Medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims, arising from
employer-employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or
household service, involving an amount of exceeding five thousand pesos
(P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.
(b) The
commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided
by Labor Arbiters.
[xxi]
Effective July 15, 1995.
[xxii]
SECTION
10. Money Claims. - Notwithstanding any provision of law to
the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide,
within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the claims
arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or
contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims
for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages.
[xxiii]
Published
in the April 7, 1996 issue of the Manila Bulletin.
[xxiv] Philippine National Bank v. Cabansag, G.R. No. 157010, June 21, 2005, 460 SCRA 514, 526-527.
[xxv] Id. at
528-529.