Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=45921:159010&amp;catid=1459&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:17:53+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 159010 - NIPPON PAINT EMPLOYEES UNION-OLALIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
NIPPON PAINT EMPLOYEES UNION-OLALIA in behalf of ADONIS GUANSING, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, NIPPON PAINT PHILS., INC. and HON. VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR BERNARDINO M. VOLANTE, Respondents.
Before us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.76501 dated 25 April 2003.
Petitioner Nippon Paint Employees Union (NPEU) is a labor union duly organized under the laws of the Philippines. Respondent Nippon Paint Phils., Inc. (NPPI) is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the Philippines engaged in the manufacture and sale of car paint.
The undisputed facts are as follows.
Singaporean-owned Nippon Paint controls 65 percent of the architectural and car paint market nationwide.
Thus, the workers said, there was no reason for the company to claim in ongoing collective bargaining talks that the company was losing money.
"How is that possible when we supply 32 million liters of the 50 million liters of car paint used nationwide? We cover 65 percent of the total market demand," said Adonis Guansing, a chemist and auditor of the Nippon Paint Labor Union.
Guansing said that Nippon Paint could well afford to increase wages because the company made P600 million last year based on its declaration filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
"We had no problem like this when the Japanese controlled Nippon Paint. It was only in 1997 that the union began facing serious problems when the Singaporeans took over majority ownership of the company," Guansing said.
Management claimed the company lost P297 million and there is an unsold inventory of paint worth P202 million.
interests, either directly or indirectly.
After the submission of Mr. Guansing's reply and unsuccessful efforts by NPPI to organize a conference between them, the latter issued a memorandum on 16 May 2002 terminating the former's employment effective 20 May 2002.6 Thereafter, Mr. Guansing, represented by NPEU, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission. Both parties agreed to submit the dispute to voluntary arbitration. On 18 December 2002, Voluntary Arbitrator Bernardino Volante promulgated a decision in favor of NPPI declaring Mr. Guansing's dismissal as legally effected but awarding P40,000.00 to the latter in the name of "compassionate justice." NPEU, acting on behalf of Mr. Guansing, challenged the said decision in the Court of Appeals by filing a Rule 65 petition for certiorari on 14 April 2003.7 The Court of Appeals dismissed NPEU's petition in its decision dated 25 April 2003.8 Hence, the present petition for certiorari .
NPEU asks this Court to rule on an issue of law - whether the Court of Appeals properly dismissed its petition for certiorari under Rule 65 for being an improper mode of appeal. It is the view of the Court of Appeals that NPEU should have appealed the voluntary arbitrator's decision by Petition for Review under Rule 43 instead of Rule 65.
This salutary rule has been disregarded on occasion by this Court in instances where valid and compelling circumstances warrant.18 However, NPEU has not provided this Court any compelling reason why it must disregard the mandate of the Rules of Court.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated 25 April 2003 is hereby AFFIRMED and the instant Petition DISMISSED.
9 249 SCRA 162 (1995).
10 B.P. Blg 129, Section 9(3) (1980) as amended by Republic Act No. 7902.
11 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 43, Section 1 (1997).
12 Sebastian v. Morales, 397 SCRA 549 (2003); 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56, Section 5(f).
13 Republic v. Court of Appeals, 322 SCRA 81 (2000) citing Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 413 (1997).
14 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 65, Section 1; Republic v. Court of Appeals, 322 SCRA 81 (2000); Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 413 (1997).
15 Republic v. Court of Appeals, 322 SCRA 81 (2000).
18 Estate of Salud Jimenez v. Philippine Export Processing Zone, 349 SCRA 240 (2001); Santo Tomas University Hospital v. Surla, 294 SCRA 382 (1998).

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