st. martin funeral home vs. nlrc, 295 scra 494(1998)

7/25/2019 St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494(1998)

1/4

LABOR RELATIONS

G.R. No. 130866. September 16, 1998.*

ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOME, petto!er, "#. NATIONALLA$OR RELATIONS %OMMISSION &!' $IEN(ENI)OARI%AOS, re#po!'e!t#.

Labor Law; Judicial Review; Appeals; Pleadings and Practice; TheCourt feels that it is now exigent and opportune to reexamine thefunctional validity and systemic practicability of the mode of

udicial review it has long adopted and still follows with respect todecisions of the !LRC"#$efore proceeding further into the meritsof the case at bar% the Court feels that it is now exigent andopportune to reexamine the functional validity and systemic

practicability of the mode of udicial review it has long adopted andstill follows with respect to decisions of the !LRC" The increasingnumber of labor disputes that &nd their way to this Court and thelegislative changes introduced over the years into the provisions ofPresidential 'ecree (P"'") !o" **+ (The Labor Code of thePhilippines and $atas Pambansa $lg" ($"P" !o") ,+- (The JudiciaryReorgani.ation Act of ,-/0) now stridently call for and warrant areassessment of that procedural aspect"

1ame; 1ame; 1ame; Jurisdiction; 1tatutes; The excepting clauseprovided for in paragraph (2)% 1ection - of $"P" !o" ,+-% asamended by R"A" !o" 3-0+% contradicts what has been ruled andsaid all along that appeal does not lie from decisions of the !LRC"#4t will% however% be noted that paragraph (2)% 1ection - of $"P"!o" ,+- now grants exclusive appellate urisdiction to the Court ofAppeals over all &nal adudications of the Regional Trial Courts andthe 5uasi6udicial agencies generally or speci&cally referred to

therein except% among others% 7those falling within the appellateurisdiction of the 1upreme Court in accordance with x x x theLabor Code of the Philippines under Presidential 'ecree !o" **+%as amended% x x x"8 This would necessarily contradict what hasbeen ruled and said all along that appeal does not lie fromdecisions of the !LRC" 9et% under such excepting clause literallyconstrued% the appeal from the !LRC cannot be brought to theCourt of Appeals% but to this Court by necessary implication"

1ame; 1ame; 1ame; 1ame; There are no cases in the Labor Codethe decisions% resolutions% orders or awards wherein are within theappellate urisdiction of the 1upreme Court or of any other courtfor that matter"#The same exceptive clause further confuses thesituation by declaring that the Court of Appeals has no appellate

urisdiction over decisions falling within the appellate urisdiction ofthe 1upreme Court in accordance with the Constitution% theprovisions of $"P" !o" ,+-% and those speci&ed cases in 1ection ,3

of the Judiciary Act of ,-*/" These cases can% of course% beproperly excluded from the exclusive appellate urisdiction of theCourt of Appeals" :owever% because of the aforementionedamendment by transposition% also supposedly excluded are casesfalling within the appellate urisdiction of the 1upreme Court inaccordance with the Labor Code" This is illogical and impracticable%and Congress could not have intended that procedural gae% sincethere are no cases in the Labor Code the decisions% resolutions%orders or awards wherein are within the appellate urisdiction ofthe 1upreme Court or of any other court for that matter"

1ame; 1ame; 1ame; 1ame; 1tatutory Construction; A review of thelegislative records on the antecedents of R"A" !o" 3-0+ persuadesthe Court that there may have been an oversight in the course ofthe deliberations on the said Act or an imprecision in theterminology used therein"#A review of the legislative records onthe antecedents of R"A" !o" 3-0+ persuades us that there may

have been an oversight in the course of the deliberations on thesaid Act or an imprecision in the terminology used therein" 4n &ne%Congress did intend to provide for udicial review of theadudications of the !LRC in labor cases by the 1upreme Court% butthere was an inaccuracy in the term used for the intended mode ofreview" This conclusion which we have reluctantly but prudentlyarrived at has been drawn from the considerations extant in therecords of Congress% more particularly on 1enate $ill !o" ,*-< andthe Reference Committee Report on 1" !o" ,*-


2/4

LABOR RELATIONS

$ased on the position papers of the parties% the labor arbiterrendered a decision in favor of petitioner on Bctober +declaring that no employer6employee relationship existed betweenthe parties and% therefore% his oDce had no urisdiction over thecase"2

!ot satis&ed with the said decision% private respondent appealedto the !LRC contending that the labor arbiter erred (,) in notgiving credence to the evidence submitted by him; (+) in holdingthat he worHed as a 7volunteer8 and not as an employee of 1t"artin Guneral :ome from Gebruary >% ,--< to January +2% ,-->%or a period of about one year; and (2) in ruling that there was no

employer6employee relationship between him and petitioner"*Bn June ,2% ,--3% the !LRC rendered a resolution setting aside the5uestioned decision and remanding the case to the labor arbiterfor immediate appropriate proceedings"< Petitioner then &led amotion for reconsideration which was denied by the !LRC in itsresolution dated August ,/% ,--3 for lacH of merit%> hence thepresent petition alleging that the !LRC committed grave abuse ofdiscretion"3

$efore proceeding further into the merits of the case at bar% theCourt feels that it is now exigent and opportune to reexamine thefunctional validity and systemic practicability of the mode of

udicial review it has long adopted and still follows with respect todecisions of the !LRC" The increasing number of labor disputesthat &nd their way to this Court and the legislative changesintroduced over the years into the provisions of Presidential 'ecree(P"'") !o" **+ (The Labor Code of the Philippines and $atas

Pambansa $lg" ($"P" !o") ,+- (The Judiciary Reorgani.ation Act of,-/0) now stridently call for and warrant a reassessment of thatprocedural aspect"

?e prefatorily delve into the legal history of the !LRC" 4t was &rstestablished in the 'epartment of Labor by P"'" !o" +, on Bctober,*% ,-3+% and its decisions were expressly declared to beappealable to the 1ecretary of Labor and% ultimately% to thePresident of the Philippines"

Bn ay ,% ,-3*% P"'" !o" **+ enacted the Labor Code of thePhilippines% the same to taHe eect six months after itspromulgation"/ Created and regulated therein is the present !LRCwhich was attached to the 'epartment of Labor and @mploymentfor program and policy coordination only"- 4nitially% Article 20+(now% Article ++2) thereof also granted an aggrieved party theremedy of appeal from the decision of the !LRC to the 1ecretary ofLabor% but P"'" !o" ,2-, subse5uently amended said provision and

abolished such appeals" !o appellate review has since then beenprovided for"

Thus% to repeat% under the present state of the law% there is noprovision for appeals from the decision of the !LRC",0 The present1ection ++2% as last amended by 1ection ,+ of R"A" !o" >3,


3/4

LABOR RELATIONS

subparagraph (*) of the fourth paragraph of 1ection ,3 of theJudiciary Act of ,-*/"8 (4talics supplied)

2" Contrarily% however% speci&cally added to and included amongthe 5uasi6udicial agencies over which the Court of Appeals shallhave exclusive appellate urisdiction are the 1ecurities and@xchange Commission% the 1ocial 1ecurity Commission% the@mployees Compensation Commission and the Civil 1erviceCommission"

This% then% brings us to a somewhat perplexing impass% both inpoint of purpose and terminology" As earlier explained% our modeof udicial review over decisions of the !LRC has for some time

now been understood to be by a petition for certiorari under Rule>< of the Rules of Court" This is% of course% a special original actionlimited to the resolution of urisdictional issues% that is% lacH orexcess of urisdiction and% in almost all cases that have beenbrought to us% grave abuse of discretion amounting to lacH of

urisdiction"

4t will% however% be noted that paragraph (2)% 1ection - of $"P" !o",+- now grants exclusive appellate urisdiction to the Court ofAppeals over all &nal adudications of the Regional Trial Courts andthe 5uasi6udicial agencies generally or speci&cally referred totherein except% among others% 7those falling within the appellate

urisdiction of the 1upreme Court in accordance with x x x theLabor Code of the Philippines under Presidential 'ecree !o" **+%as amended% x x x"8 This would necessarily contradict what hasbeen ruled and said all along that appeal does not lie fromdecisions of the !LRC",3 9et% under such excepting clause literally

construed% the appeal from the !LRC cannot be brought to theCourt of Appeals% but to this Court by necessary implication"

The same exceptive clause further confuses the situation bydeclaring that the Court of Appeals has no appellate urisdictionover decisions falling within the appellate urisdiction of the1upreme Court in accordance with the Constitution% the provisionsof $"P" !o" ,+-% and those speci&ed cases in 1ection ,3 of the

Judiciary Act of ,-*/" These cases can% of course% be properlyexcluded from the exclusive appellate urisdiction of the Court ofAppeals" :owever% because of the aforementioned amendment bytransposition% also supposedly excluded are cases falling within theappellate urisdiction of the 1upreme Court in accordance with theLabor Code" This is illogical and impracticable% and Congress couldnot have intended that procedural gae% since there are no casesin the Labor Code the decisions% resolutions% orders or awardswherein are within the appellate urisdiction of the 1upreme Court

or of any other court for that matter"A review of the legislative records on the antecedents of R"A" !o"3-0+ persuades us that there may have been an oversight in thecourse of the deliberations on the said Act or an imprecision in theterminology used therein" 4n &ne% Congress did intend to providefor udicial review of the adudications of the !LRC in labor casesby the 1upreme Court% but there was an inaccuracy in the termused for the intended mode of review" This conclusion which wehave reluctantly but prudently arrived at has been drawn from theconsiderations extant in the records of Congress% more particularlyon 1enate $ill !o" ,*-< and the Conference Committee Report on1" !o" ,*-


4/4

LABOR RELATIONS

was and still is the proper vehicle for udicial review of decisions ofthe !LRC" The use of the word 7appeal8 in relation thereto and inthe instances we have noted could have been a lapsus plumaebecause appeals by certiorari and the original action for certiorariare both modes of udicial review addressed to the appellatecourts" The important distinction between them% however% and withwhich the Court is particularly concerned here is that the specialcivil action of certiorari is within the concurrent original urisdictionof this Court and the Court of Appeals;+2 whereas to indulge in theassumption that appeals by certiorari to the 1upreme Court areallowed would not subserve% but would subvert% the intention ofCongress as expressed in the sponsorship speech on 1enate $ill!o" ,*-< and >>) are always available in proper cases where there isappeal or other plain% speedy% or ade5uate remedy in the ordincourse of law" The power of the 1upreme Court to striHe down which infringe on constitutional protections or to nuadministrative decisions contrary to constitutional mandcannot be reduced or circumscribed by any statute or decreestatute is needed to bring arbitrary acts or decisions within

urisdiction"

(Tropical :omes% 4nc" vs" !ational :ousing Authority% ,

st. martin funeral home vs. nlrc, 295 scra 494(1998)

Documents