FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 196558. August 28, 2019.]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 02, TUGUEGARAO CITY, CAGAYAN, petitioner, vs.MARIONITO L. GOLLAYAN, JEORGE B. SUYU, DOMINGO A. TULIAO AND OSCAR M. ABANA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 28, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 196558 (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 02, TUGUEGARAO CITY, CAGAYAN, Petitioner, v. MARIONITO L. GOLLAYAN, JEORGE B. SUYU, DOMINGO A. TULIAO and OSCAR M. ABANA, Respondents.) — After a judicious review of the records, We deny the petition filed by the petitioner for failure to prove that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed reversible error in its decision on March 22, 2011, 1 whereby the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner for its failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
It is settled rule that a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite in the filing of a petition for certiorari. Although the rule admits of exceptions, 2 the petitioner failed to convince that its case warranted exemption.
At any rate, the petitioner, as a government agency, cannot escape liability from nonpayment of the respondents' monetary claims representing underpaid wages, 13th month pay, incentive leave pay, and holiday pay. Indeed, Articles 106, 107 and 109 of the Labor Code places the petitioner as solidarily liable with that of the contractor. 3 However, the respondents should be reminded that the payment of their money claims cannot be effected without filing the same before the Commission on Audit.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review and AFFIRMS the March 22, 2011 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 104042. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 43-54; penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, and concurred in by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao.
2. Namely: (a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved (Republic v. Dimarucot, G.R. No. 202069, March 7, 2018, 857 SCRA 614).
3.Philippine Fisheries Development Authority v. NLRC, G.R. No. 94825, September 4, 1992, 213 SCRA 621, 627.