Court of Appeals’ power to review NLRC decisions

In a case for illegal dismissal filed by respondent Guillermo T. Maglaya Sr. against petitioner Wesleyan University-Philippines (WUP), the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed and set aside the decision of the LA. It found respondent illegally dismissed and granted him the total awards of P2.5 million.

WUP filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) which dismissed it, ruling that the decision and resolution of the NLRC became final and executory on March 16, 2013.

WUP’s attempt to resurrect its lost remedy through filing the petition would not prosper since final and executory judgment becomes unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect.

Did the CA commit a reversible error?

Ruling: Yes.

Settled is the rule that while the decision of the NLRC becomes final and executory after the lapse of ten calendar days from receipt by the parties under Article 223 (now Article 229) of the Labor Code, the adverse party is not precluded from assailing it via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA and then to the Court via a petition for review under Rule 45.

The Court has explained and clarified the power of the CA to review NLRC decisions, viz.: The power of the Court of Appeals to review NLRC decisions via Rule 65 or Petition for Certiorari has been settled as early as in our decision in St. Martin Funeral Home v. National Labor Relations Commission, 356 Phil. 811 (1998). This Court held that the proper vehicle for such review was a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and that this action should be filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts.

Moreover, it is already settled that under Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7902[10] (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, amending for the purpose of Section Nine of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended, known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), the Court of Appeals — pursuant to the exercise of its original jurisdiction over Petitions for Certiorari - is specifically given the power to pass upon the evidence, if and when necessary, to resolve factual issues.

Consequently, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a precondition for any further or subsequent remedy, and then seasonably avail of the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65, for a period of 60 days from notice of the decision.

Records reveal that WOP received the decision of the NLRC on May 12, 2012, and filed its motion for reconsideration on May 24, 2012. WUP received the resolution dated Feb. 11, 2013, denying its motion on March 12, 2013. Thereafter, it filed its petition for certiorari before the CA on March 26, 2013.

We find that the application of the doctrine of immutability of judgment in the case at bar is misplaced. To reiterate, although the 10-day period for finality of the decision of the NLRC may already have lapsed as contemplated in the Labor Code, this Court may still take cognizance of the petition for certiorari on jurisdictional and due process considerations if filed within the reglementary period under Rule 65. From the abovementioned, WUP was able to discharge the necessary conditions in availing its remedy against the final and executory decision of the NLRC.

There is an underlying power of the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute. Furthermore, the purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protect the substantial rights of the parties.

(Peralta, J., SC 2nd Division, Wesleyan University-Philippines v. Guillermo T. Maglaya, Sr., G.R. No. 212774, January 23, 2017).

There is an underlying power of the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute.