Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83329:57340&catid=1586&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 01:46:35+00:00

Document:
LEI SHERYLL FERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. BOTICA CLAUDIO REPRESENTED BY GUADALUPE JOSE, Respondent.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated September 13, 2012 and the Resolution3 dated February 11, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 123633 which nullified and set aside (a) the Resolution4 dated March 15, 2010 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR Case No. 01-22111-06-RI finding petitioner Lei Sheryll Fernandez (Fernandez) to have been illegally dismissed by respondent Guadalupe Jose (Jose), and (b) the Order5 dated August 17, 2010 of Labor Arbiter (LA) Napoleon V. Fernando granting the issuance of a writ of execution of the foregoing NLRC resolution.
On March 15, 2010, the NLRC rendered a Resolution20 (NLRC Resolution) granting Fernandez’s appeal, and thereby reversing the LA’s ruling.
Without disclosing the date when the foregoing resolution was received, Jose filed a motion for reconsideration27 dated January 20, 2011 before the NLRC, insisting that just causes attended Fernandez’s dismissal, albeit the same was made without procedural due process.
Notwithstanding the pendency of the aforesaid motions for reconsideration, Jose filed a petition for certiorari30 before the CA, claiming to have secured a copy of the NLRC Resolution and LA Order only upon personal verification on February 8, 201031 and filed a motion for reconsideration therefrom on April 12, 2011,32 referring to her second motion for reconsideration dated February 2, 2011.
Aggrieved, Fernandez sought reconsideration39 but the same was denied in a Resolution40 dated February 11, 2013, hence, the instant petition.
The core issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA erred in holding that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in giving due course to Fernandez’s appeal.
At the outset, the Court notes that the CA gravely abused its discretion in giving due course to respondent’s Rule 65 certiorari petition despite its finding that the latter still had a pending motion for reconsideration from the Decision dated March 15, 2010 before the NLRC.41 It is settled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration from the order, resolution or decision of the NLRC is an indispensable condition before an aggrieved party can avail of a petition for certiorari.42 This is to afford the NLRC an opportunity to rectify its perceived errors or mistakes, if any.43 Hence, the more prudent recourse for respondent should have been to move for the immediate resolution of its motion for reconsideration before the NLRC instead of filing a petition for certiorari before the CA. 44 Having failed to do so, her petition for certiorari was prematurely filed,45 and the CA should have dismissed the same.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the CA erred in ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in taking cognizance of Fernandez’s appeal.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 13, 2012 and the Resolution dated February 11, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 123633 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated March 15, 2010 of the National Labor Relations Commission and the Order dated August 17, 2010 of the Labor Arbiter are REINSTATED.
2 Id. at 32-43. Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, with Associate Justices Michael P. Elbinias and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, concurring.
4 Id. at 123-130. Penned by Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr., with Commissioners Alex A. Lopez and Gregorio O. Bilog III, concurring.
5 Id. at 223-225. Docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB-IV-01-22111-06-RI.
14 Id. at 105-108. Penned by LA Jose G. De Vera.
19 Id. at 110 and 119.
41 See id. at 37.
42Republic v. Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI), G.R. No. 178593, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 199, 205. See also Dr. Santos v. CA, 563 Phil. 240, 245 (2007).
43Dr. Santos v. CA, id.
44 See id. at 246.
Section 3. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal. – (a) The appeal shall be filed within the reglementary period as provided in Section 1 of this Rule; shall be under oath with proof of payment of the required appeal fee and the posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 5 of this Rule; shall be accompanied by a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof; the relief prayed for; and a statement of the date when the appellant received the appealed decision, order or award and proof of service on the other party of such appeal.
A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal.
49 See Sunrise Manning Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, 485 Phil. 426, 430 (2004).
50 EDI-Staffbuilders International, Inc. v. NLRC, 563 Phil. 1, 18-19 (2007).
54 542 Phil. 365 (2007).
55 See id. at 371.
56Cada v. Time Saver Laundry/Leslie Perez, 597 Phil. 548, 563 (2009).

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