St. Martin Funeral vs. NLRC G.R. 130866 September 16, 1998 295 SCRA 494 Regalado, J.

:
FACTS: Respondent Aricayos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal to the labor arbiter. There being no employer-employee relationship between the two, petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Arcayos appealed to NLRC cotending errors of the labor arbiter. ISSUE: Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over NLRC appeals? RULING: First established in 1972, decisions of NLRC were declared to be appealable to the Secretary of labor and, ultimately to the President. But under the present state law, there is no provision for appeals from NLRC decisions. The court held that there is an underlying power of the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though not right of review is given by statute, that the purpose of jurisdiction review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protect the substantial rights of the parties; and that is part of the checks and balances which restricts the separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust jurisdictions. Subsequently under RA 7902, effective March 1995, the mode for judicial review over NLRC decisions in that of a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. The same confuses by declaring that the CA has no appellate jurisdiction over decisions falling within the appellate jurisdiction of SC, including the NLRC decisions. Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of BP 129 to supposed appeals from NLRC to SC are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. All such petitions should henceforth be initially filed in the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as appropriate forum for the relief desired. Case remanded to CA. Case Title:

ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOME VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.
[G. R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998] [en banc] FACTS & RULING OF THE COURT: The Supreme Court [en banc] did not rule on the factual issues of the case but instead re-examined, inter alia, Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7902 [effective March 18, 1995] on the issue of where to elevate on appeal the decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission [NLRC]. The High Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals consistent with the new ruling enunciated therein that the "appeals" contemplated under the law from the decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission to the Supreme Court should be

interpreted to mean "petitions for certiorari under Rule 65" and consequently, should no longer be brought directly to the Supreme Court but initially to the Court of Appeals. Before this new en banc ruling, the Supreme Court has consistently held that decisions of the NLRC may be elevated directly to the Supreme Court only by way of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. There was no ruling allowing resort to the Court of Appeals. In support of this new view, the Supreme Court ratiocinated, insofar as pertinent, as follows:

"While we do not wish to intrude into the Congressional sphere on the matter of the wisdom of a law, on this score we add the further observations that there is a growing number of labor cases being elevated to this Court which, not being a trier of fact, has at times been constrained to remand the case to the NLRC for resolution of unclear or ambiguous factual findings; that the Court of Appeals is procedurally equipped for that purpose, aside from the increased number of its competent divisions; and that there is undeniably an imperative need for expeditious action on labor cases as a major aspect of constitutional protection to labor. "Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of B. P. No. 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. Consequently, all such petitions should henceforth be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the appropriate forum for the relief desired. xxx"