Azizzah International Manpower Services, Inc. v. Sandigan
This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on February 8, 2021. The case is between Azizzah International Manpower Services, Incorporated and Azizza T. Salim (petitioners) and Nasrudin P. Sandigan (respondent). The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioners' petition for certiorari and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the award of salary differential to the respondent. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners should have filed a petition for review under Rule 45 instead of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court also ruled that the labor tribunals did not commit any reversible error in upholding the award of salary differential to the respondent as the petitioners failed to prove that the respondent was paid all his monetary entitlements. The factual findings of the labor tribunals, when affirmed by the CA, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality, and are binding on the Court.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254890. February 8, 2021.]
AZIZZAH INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES, INCORPORATED AND AZIZZA* T. SALIM, petitioners,vs. NASRUDIN P. SANDIGAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated08 February 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 254890 (Azizzah International Manpower Services, Incorporated and Azizza T. Salim v. Nasrudin P. Sandigan). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS outright the instant petition 1 for being the wrong mode of appeal in assailing the Decision 2 dated October 24, 2019 and the Resolution 3 dated August 19, 2020 of the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 09154.
Notably, petitioners Azizzah International Manpower Services, Inc. and Azizza T. Salim (petitioners) should have filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which is the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, and not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the same Rules, in assailing the findings of the CA. Fundamental is the rule that the extraordinary remedy of certiorari would not lie if there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 4 HTcADC
In any event, the CA did not commit any reversible error in upholding the award of salary differential to respondent Nasrudin P. Sandigan (respondent).
As correctly ruled by the CA, the labor tribunals cannot be faulted in disregarding petitioners' Position Paper 5 for having been filed beyond the period prescribed under the 2011 National Labor Relations Commission Rules of Procedure 6 and absent any adequate justification for its late filing. Moreover, even if admitted, petitioners still failed to establish by substantial evidence their claim that respondent was paid all his monetary entitlements. Consequently, the award of salary differential claimed by respondent must be sustained. It bears stressing that factual findings of the labor tribunals, when affirmed by the CA, are generally accorded not only respect, but even finality, and are binding on the Court, 7 as in this case. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* 'Azizzah' in the title of the petition. See rollo, p. 3.
1.Id. at 3-36.
2.Id. at 522-531. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren with Associate Justices Loida S. Posadas-Kahulugan and Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-Sale, concurring.
3.Id. at 44-44A.
4. See Malayang Manggagawang Stayfast Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 716 Phil. 500 (2013); citation omitted.
5.Rollo, pp. 552-561.
6. Entitled 'THE 2011 NLRC RULES OF PROCEDURE, AS AMENDED,' (May 31, 2011).
7. See Grande v. Philippine Nautical Training College, 806 Phil. 601 (2017).
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU