Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50662:gr-162739-2008&amp;catid=1502&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:37:18+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 162739 - AMA COMPUTER COLLAGE-SANTIAGO CITY, INC. v. CHELLY P. NACINO, ETC.
AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-SANTIAGO CITY, INC., Petitioner, v. CHELLY P. NACINO, substituted by the Heirs of Chelly P. Nacino, Respondent.
WHEREFORE, for being procedurally flawed, this petition for certiorari is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE, and consequently DISMISSED. Needless to say, the prayer for temporary restraining order, being merely an adjunct to the main suit, must be pro tanto DENIED.
and of the CA Resolution3 dated March 3, 2004 which denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Aggrieved, Nacino filed on December 13, 2002 a Complaint10 for Illegal Suspension and Termination before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) in Tuguegarao City. On January 10, 2003, Maria Luanne M. Jali-jali (Jali-jali), AMA's representative, signed the submission Agreement, accepting the jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrator Nicanor Y. Samaniego (Voluntary Arbitrator) over the controversy.
Before the Voluntary Arbitrator, the parties agreed to settle the case amicably, with Nacino discharging and releasing AMA from all his claims in consideration of the sum of P7,719.81. The Decision11 embodying the Compromise Agreement and the corresponding Quitclaim and Release,12 both dated February 21, 2003, were duly prepared and signed, but the check in payment of the consideration for the settlement had yet to be released.
On April 1, 2003, Nacino died in an accident. On April 15, 2003, the Voluntary Arbitrator rendered the assailed Decision,13 ordering Nacino's reinstatement and the payment of his backwages and 13th month pay. Therein, the Voluntary Arbitrator manifested that, due to AMA's failure to pay the sum of P7,719.81, Nacino withdrew from the Compromise Agreement, as shown by the conduct of a hearing on March 15, 2003 where both parties appeared and were directed to file their position papers. The Voluntary Arbitrator also stated that Nacino complied, but AMA failed to file its position paper and to appear before him despite summons. On May 7, 2003, the Voluntary Arbitrator issued a Writ of Execution14 upon motion of Nacino's surviving spouse, one Bernadeth V. Nacino. AMA filed a Motion to Quash the said Writ but the Voluntary Arbitrator allegedly refused to receive the same.15 Thus, on May 22, 2003, the heirs of Nacino were able to garnish AMA's bank deposits in the amount of P52,021.70.
On June 16, 2003, AMA filed a Petition16 for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA. On June 23, 2003, the CA dismissed the said petition because it was a wrong mode of review. It held that the proper remedy was an appeal by way of Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the CA opined, an erroneous appeal shall be dismissed outright pursuant to Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
AMA filed its Motion for Reconsideration but the CA denied it in its Resolution dated March 3, 2004.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FILED BY HEREIN PETITIONER.
AMA claims that Jali-jali was misinformed and misled in signing the Submission Agreement, subjecting AMA to the jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator; that the Voluntary Arbitrator's Decision was issued under the Labor Code and, as such, the same is not appealable under Rule 43, as provided for by Section 217 thereof, but under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure; and that the Petition for Certiorari is the only plain, speedy and adequate remedy in this case since the Voluntary Arbitrator acted with grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the parties' compromise agreement, in rendering the assailed Decision, and in issuing the Writ of Execution without affording AMA its right to due process.
We find that the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that petitioner used a wrong remedy when it filed a special civil action on certiorari under Rule 65 instead of an appeal under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court held in Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees that decisions of the voluntary arbitrator under the Labor Code are appealable to the Court of Appeals. In that case, the Court observed that the Labor Code was silent as regards the appeals from the decisions of the voluntary arbitrator, unlike those of the Labor Arbiter which may be appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. The Court noted, however, that the voluntary arbitrator is a government instrumentality within the contemplation of Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 129 which provides for the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. The decisions of the voluntary arbitrator are akin to those of the Regional Trial Court, and, therefore, should first be appealed to the Court of Appeals before being elevated to this Court. This is in furtherance and consistent with the original purpose of Circular No. 1-91 to provide a uniform procedure for the appellate review of adjudications of all quasi-judicial agencies not expressly excepted from the coverage of Section 9 of BP 129. Circular No. 1-91 was later revised and became Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95. The Rules of Court Revision Committee incorporated said circular in Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The inclusion of the decisions of the voluntary arbitrator in the Rule was based on the Court's pronouncements in Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees. Petitioner's argument, therefore, that the ruling in said case is inapplicable in this case is without merit.
We are not unmindful of instances when certiorari was granted despite the availability of appeal, such as (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.21 However, none of these recognized exceptions attends the case at bar. AMA has sadly failed to show circumstances that would justify a deviation from the general rule.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Court of Appeals Resolutions dated June 23, 2003 and March 3, 2004 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.
1 Dated April 27, 2004; rollo, pp. 8-39.
2 Particularly docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 77508, penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao (retired), with Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Danilo B. Pine (both retired), concurring; id. at 48.
4 Memorandum, id. at 83.
5 Written Explanation; id. at 84.
6 Memorandum, dated November 5, 2002; id. at 85.
7 Memorandum, dated November 7, 2002; id. at. 88.
9 Memorandum, id. at 91.
11 Decision in NCMB-RB2-VA Case No. 01-001-2003; id. at 95-96.
15 Affidavit of one Dennis Salvador, messenger of AMA dated March 19, 2003; id. at 82.
17 Rule 43, SEC. 2. Cases not covered. - This Rule shall not apply to judgments or final orders issued under the Labor Code of the Philippines.
18 Resolution, April 11, 2005; rollo, p. 117.
19 Resolution, August 15, 2005; id. at 123.
20 G.R. No. 165486, May 31, 2006, 490 SCRA 61, 69-70, citing Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees, 249 SCRA 162 (1995).
21 Chua v. Santos, G.R. No. 132467, October 18, 2004, 440 SCRA 365, 374-375.
22 First Corporation v. Former Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 171989, July 4, 2007.
23 Supra note 16, at 53-54.
24 Zacate v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 144678, March 1, 2001, 353 SCRA 441, 449.
25 Audi Ag v. Hon. Jules A. Mejia, in his capacity as Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Alaminos City; Auto Prominence Corporation; and Proton Pilipinas Corporation, G.R. No. 167533, July 27, 2007.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.