SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 256092. June 21, 2021.]
MIDA T. RIAZ, petitioner,vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and AMALIA AGUILAR, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 21 June 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 256092 (Mida T. Riaz v. National Labor Relations Commission and Amalia Aguilar). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition 1 for violating the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. This doctrine '[r]equires that recourse must first be made to the lower-ranked court exercising concurrent jurisdiction with a higher court x x x.' 2 As such, decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) should be initially elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court in strict observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. 3
In any event, the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in awarding nominal damages, service incentive leave pay, salary differentials, and 13th month pay to respondent Amalia Aguilar (respondent), since petitioner Mida T. Riaz failed to substantiate her claim that her enterprise is a duly-registered Barangay Micro Business Enterprise entitled to avail of the incentives and benefits under the law, 4 and that respondent was hired only for less than a year. 5 Moreover, the computation of monetary awards is a factual issue, which cannot be raised in an extraordinary writ of certiorari where neither questions of fact nor of law are entertained, but only questions of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, 6 as in this case.
SO ORDERED. (Lopez, J., J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021)."
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Petition for Certiorari dated April 12, 2021; Rollo, pp. 3-19.
2.Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan v. Quezon City, 815Phil. 1067, 1089 (2017), citing Arroyo v. Department of Justice, 695 Phil. 302, 334 (2012).
3. See St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, 356 Phil. 811, 824-825 (1998).
4.Rollo, p. 48.
5.Id. at 32.
6. See Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast Phils., Inc. v. NLRC, 716 Phil. 500, 517 (2013), citing Romy's Freight Service v. Castro, 523 Phil. 540, 546 (2006).