HANJIN ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
v.
COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS:
A Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, with prayer for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction, seeking the annulment of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 67601 as well as the Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration thereof.
Petitioner, Hanjin Development Co., Ltd., a corporation established and registered in South Korea, is a construction company licensed to do business in the Philippines. It had been contracted by the Philippine Government for the construction of various foreign-financed projects.
On October 18, 1991 and August 21, 1992, Hanjin and the Philippine Government through the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), executed contracts for the construction of the Malinao Dam at Pilar, Bohol with project completion period of 1,050 calendar days, including main canal and lateral projects for 750 days. From August 1995 to 1996, Hanjin contracted the services of 712 carpenters, masons, truck drivers, helpers, laborers, heavy equipment operators, leadmen, engineers, steelmen, mechanics, electricians and others.
In April 1998, 712 employees filed complaints for illegal dismissal and for payment of benefits against Hanjin and Nam Hyun Kin, the officer-in-charge of the project, before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). They averred that they were regular employees of Hanjin and that they were separated from employment without any lawful or just cause. Only 521 employees as complainants affixed their signatures in the complaint.
On the other hand, petitioners alleged that the complainants were mere project employees in its Bohol Irrigation Project. Before the project completed, they investigated cases involving some equipment operators who siphoned diesel fuel from equipment and placed them in 20-liter plastic containers. Two of the employees were charged with qualified theft before the RTC. They also pointed out the some of the complainants had voluntarily resigned, others were absent without prior approval leave, there were others who signed a Motion to Withdraw from the complaint and many of them were separated on account of the completion of the project. However, petitioners failed to append any document to support their claim.
The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of the 248 complainants, granting separation pay and attorney's fees to each of the them. According to the Labor Arbiter, the complainants were regular employees of petitioner Hanjin, and their claims for underpayment, holiday pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day, 13th month pay and service incentive leave would be computed after sufficient data were made available.
Then, petitioners, appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC, whcih affirmed the said decision with modification. Petitioners filed for Motion for Reconsideration, however, they were unsatisfied and then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 in the Court of Appeals. The latter dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC's ruling that the dismissed employees were regular employees. The CA stressed that petitioners failed to refute the claim of the respondents that they were regular employees.
Hence, the instance petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the current appeal of Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is appropriate in this case.
RULING:
The Court agrees with the respondents' contention that petitioners' recourse before this Court via Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court was inappropriate.
"Section 1, Article VIII, of the Constitution provides that judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such other courts as may be established by law. "
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of bench or instrumentality of the government.
The Court has original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibitions and mandamus, and may review on appeal or certiorari as the law on the Rules of Court may provide final judgment and orders of lower courts and cases in which only questions of law is involved.
However, if a petition for certiorari involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency and unless otherwise provided by law or the Rules of Court, the petition for certiorari shall be final and is cognizable only by the CA. One such quasi-judicial agency is the NLRC.
Inasmuch as the appellate court has exclusive jurisdiction over quasi-judicial agencies under Rule 43, petitions for review on certiorari should be filed only with the CA, unless otherwise provided by law or the Rules. Moreover, under Rule 45, a party appealing from judgments or final orders or resolutions of the CA, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or any other court, unless authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari, raising only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.
Thus, the judicial review of the decisions or final order of the NLRC should be filed with the CA under Section 5 of Rule 65, on the ground that the NLRC has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. The remedy of the aggrieved party from the CA decision shall be by petition for review on certiorari with this Court under Rule 45.
Petitioners interposed the present special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 as an alternative to their petition not because it is the speedy and adequate remedy but to make up for the loss of their right of an ordinary appeal. It is elementary that the special civil action of certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, where the latter remedy is available as it was in this case.
A special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court cannot cure a party's failure to timely file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. The former is an independent action that cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45, especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned by a party's neglect or error in choice of remedies. An exception to this rule are: (a) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; (b) when the broader interest of justice so requires; (c) when the writs issued are null and void; or (d) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. However, none of these recognized exceptions, is present in the case at bar.
No comments:
Post a Comment