Gallant Godsend Transit Corp. v. Cañedo
This is a civil case, G.R. No. 242765, decided by the Philippine Supreme Court on January 16, 2019. The Court denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by Gallant Godsend Transit Corp. and Mary Grace Marfori De Leon (petitioners) against Archie S. Caedo, et al. (respondents) due to the failure to indicate the date of posting of the petition and the failure to show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error. The legal issue in this case is whether the Labor Arbiter gravely abused her discretion when she merely noted the appeal memorandum instead of elevating the same to the National Labor Relations Commission for a decision on the merits. The Supreme Court ruled that the Labor Arbiter did not commit any grave abuse of discretion, as the filing of an appeal from orders issued by the Labor Arbiter in the course of execution proceedings is prohibited. The Court further stated that the petitioners can no longer review the January 30, 2014 Decision, which found the petitioners liable for illegal dismissal and ordered them to pay respondents' monetary claims, as it has long attained finality.
ADVERTISEMENT
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242765. January 16, 2019.]
GALLANT GODSEND TRANSIT CORP. AND MARY GRACE MARFORI DE LEON, petitioners,vs. ARCHIE S. CAÑEDO, JEFFREY L. LAZARO, MANUEL A. ENANO, JOSEPH F. PANDUGA, MARIO R. SUBA, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 16, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242765 — Gallant Godsend Transit Corp. and Mary Grace Marfori De Leon, petitioners, vs. Archie S. Cañedo, Jeffrey L. Lazaro, Manuel A. Enano, Joseph F. Panduga, Mario R. Suba, et al., respondents.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments raised in the Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for: (a) failure to show that the Petition had been timely filed, as the date of posting thereof was not indicated in the mailing envelope; and (b) failure of petitioners to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error as to warrant the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Petitioners insist that Labor Arbiter Agatha Ann L. Daquigan gravely abused her discretion when she merely noted their Appeal Memorandum instead of elevating the same to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for a decision on the merits. 1
Section 5 (i), Rule V of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure specifically prohibits the filing of an appeal from orders issued by the Labor Arbiter in the course of execution proceedings.
In this case, it is undisputed that petitioners filed their Appeal Memorandum only after the denial of their opposition to respondents' Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution of the Decision dated January 30, 2014. 2 Consequently, both the NLRC and the CA are correct in ruling that the Labor Arbiter did not act with grave abuse of discretion when she simply noted said prohibited pleading in the Order dated March 2, 2015 without elevating the same to the Commission for resolution. After all, "[a] prohibited pleading does not produce any legal effect and may be deemed not filed at all." 3
As regards the issue relating to the dismissal of respondents, 4 it bears stressing that the January 30, 2014 Decision which found petitioners liable for illegal dismissal and ordered them to pay respondents' monetary claims has long attained finality. 5 The Court, therefore, can no longer exercise its appellate jurisdiction to review the same.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the April 18, 2018 Decision and the September 27, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 141616.
Moreover, Hon. Agatha Ann L. Daquigan, Labor Arbiter, National Labor Relations Commission, Hon. Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap, National Labor Relations Commission Commissioner, Fifth Division, and the Court of Appeals, 14th Division, are DELETED as party respondents in this case pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 21-22.
2.Id. at 5-9.
3.Barangay Chairman Herbert O. Chua v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 236573, August 14, 2018.
4.Id. at 23.
5.Id. at 138.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU