St. Martin Funeral Home v.

NLRC

014

GR No. 130866, 16 September 1998, Regalado, J.

Digested by Anna Law 125 Civil Procedure
Petitioners:
Respondents:
Nature of the Case:

St. Ma rtin Funeral Home

NLRC & Bienvenido Aricayos
Petition for Certiorari

A petition for certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court from a decision of the
NLRC on an illegal dismissal complaint. The Court ruled that all references in the
amended Section 9 of B.P. No. 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the
Supreme Court are interpreted to mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under
Rule 65, and that such petitions should initially be filed with the Court of Appeals.
FACTS
Petition for certiorari from an illegal dismissal complaint filed by
Bienvenido Aricayos against St. Martin Funeral Home.
o Aricayos claim: He was employed as the Operations Manager of
St. Martin Funeral Home, but without an employment contract. He
was illegally dismissed by the funeral home for allegedly
misappropriating funds intended for payment to the BIR.
o St. Martins response: Aricayos is the uncle of the original owner of
the funeral home, and he voluntarily helped in running the business
after his niece gave him financial assistance. The current owner
(daughter) took over the business upon the passing of her mother,
and discovered that there were tax deficiencies.
LA ruled in favor of Aricayos. NLRC remanded the case to the LA for
immediate appropriate proceedings.
Petitioners MR was denied. Hence, the present petition.
ISSUE & HOLDING
WON the SC should take cognizance of the petition NO. Case
forwarded to CA as a matter of procedure.
RATIO
The Court feels that it is now exigent and opportune to reexamine the
functional validity and systemic practicability of the mode of judicial review
it has long adopted and still follows with respect to decisions of the
NLRC.
Article 302/223 of the LC granted an aggrieved party the remedy of appeal
from the decision of the NLRC to the SOL. However, PD 1391
subsequently amended this provision and abolished such appeals. Thus,
at the time the petition was filed, there was no provision for appeals
from decisions of the NLRC.
In an earlier case, the question regarding the Courts statutory right to
review NLRC decisions was already raised. 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 no right
of review is given by statute; that the purpose of judicial review is to
keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protect the
substantial rights of the parties; and that it is that part of the checks and
balances which restricts the separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary
and unjust adjudications.
o Therefore, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to timely file a
motion for reconsideration, and then seasonably avail of the
special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65, which has now a
reglementary period of sixty days from notice of the decision.
Section 9(3) of BP 129, as amended by RA 7902, 1 granted exclusive
appellate jurisdiction to the Court of Appeals over all final adjudications of
the Regional Trial Courts and the quasi-judicial agencies generally or
specifically referred to therein except, among others, "those falling within
the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the
Labor Code..."
o This would imply that there are ne appeals from NLRC
decisions. However, this is illogical and impracticable, and
Congress could not have intended that procedural gaffe.
Reviewing the legislative records on RA 7902, the Court is convinced that
there was an oversight - Congress did intend to provide for judicial
review of the adjudications of the NLRC in labor cases by the
Supreme Court, but there was an inaccuracy in the term used for the
intended mode of review.
Since appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court were eliminated,
the legislative intendment was that the special civil action of
certiorari was and still is the proper vehicle for judicial review of
decisions of the NLRC.

1 SEC.

9. Jurisdiction. - The Court of Appeals shall exercise:

(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo
warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts; and
(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of
Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees Compensation
Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential
Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and
subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform
any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate
jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. Trials or hearings in
the Court of Appeals must be continuous and must be completed within, three (3) months, unless extended
by the Chief Justice.

o The use of the word appeal was simply an error because appeals
by certiorari and original actions for certiorari are both modes of
judicial review. The important distinction between them, however,
and with which the Court is particularly concerned here is that the
special civil action of certiorari is within the concurrent original
jurisdiction of this Court and the Court of Appeals.
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.

DISPOSITIVE
WHEREFORE, under the foregoing premises, the instant petition for certiorari is
hereby REMANDED, and all pertinent records thereof ordered to be
FORWARDED, to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and
disposition consistent with the views and ruling herein set forth, without
pronouncement as to costs.