Velasco v. Matsushita Electric Philippines Corp.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 220701. June 6, 2016.]

ADELA VELASCO, petitioner, vs. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC PHILIPPINES CORPORATION [now PANASONIC MANUFACTURING PHILIPPINES CORPORATION] SEIICHI FUKAMI, President; HIROKAZU UMEDA, Finance Director, BARTOLOME SARANGAYA, Personnel Director, JAIME TIONGSON, General Manager, and SINICHI HOSONE, Personnel Adviser, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (6TH DIVISION), LABOR ARBITER MELCHESEDEK A. GUAN, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 06 June 2016 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 220701: ADELA VELASCO v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC PHILIPPINES CORPORATION [now PANASONIC MANUFACTURING PHILIPPINES CORPORATION] SEIICHI FUKAMI, President; HIROKAZU UMEDA, Finance Director, BARTOLOME SARANGAYA, Personnel Director, JAIME TIONGSON, General Manager, and SINICHI HOSONE, Personnel Adviser, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (6TH DIVISION), LABOR ARBITER MELCHESEDEK A. GUAN

This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by petitioner Adela Velasco (Velasco) assailing the June 2, 2015 Decision 2 and September 21, 2015 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission in not acting on the Notice of Appeal that Velasco filed before it. 4

Velasco was the complainant in an illegal dismissal case filed against private respondents Matsushita Electric Philippines Corporation (Matsushita) and its officers, Seiichi Fukami, Hirokazu Umeda, Bartolome Sarangaya, Jaime Tiongson, and Sinichi Hosone. 5 On November 23, 2009, this Court denied Matsushita's Petition for Review on Certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision in favor of Velasco. The Decision sustained the Labor Arbiter's Decision ordering Velasco's reinstatement with full backwages, albeit reducing the award of moral and exemplary damages and deleting all other monetary awards. 6 This Court's Decision became final and executory on April 19, 2010. 7

On November 11, 2011, Velasco filed before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission a Manifestation and Motion claiming that Matsushita had not complied with the judgment in her favor. She prayed for the issuance of an order requiring full and faithful compliance with this judgment. 8

In the Order 9 dated March 8, 2012, the Labor Arbiter denied Velasco's Manifestation and Motion. 10

Thereafter, Velasco filed a Notice of Appeal 11 before the National Labor Relations Commission. 12

On September 28, 2012, the National Labor Relations Commission issued the Order 13 noting without action Velasco's Notice of Appeal.

Dissatisfied, Velasco filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure before the Court of Appeals. 14

In its assailed June 2, 2015 Decision, 15 the Court of Appeals denied Velasco's Rule 65 Petition. In its assailed September 21, 2015 Resolution, 16 the Court of Appeals denied Velasco's Motion for Reconsideration.

Hence, this Petition was filed. AaCTcI

For resolution is the sole issue of whether the National Labor Relations Commission, in noting without action petitioner Adela Velasco's Notice of Appeal from the Order issued by the Labor Arbiter during the execution proceedings, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Petitioner is correct in asserting that she is not bereft of reliefs from adverse orders issued by the Labor Arbiter in connection with the execution of the judgment in her favor. However, she failed to avail of the correct remedy.

Rule 5, Section 5 of the 2011 Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission explicitly provides that an appeal from an order issued by a Labor Arbiter in the course of execution proceedings is a prohibited pleading.

SECTION 5. PROHIBITED PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS. — The following pleadings and motions shall not be allowed and acted upon nor elevated to the Commission:

xxx xxx xxx

i) Appeal from orders issued by the Labor Arbiter in the course of execution proceedings.

This is affirmed by Rule XII, Section 15 of the same Rules:

SECTION 15. NO APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OR RESOLUTION OF THE LABOR ARBITER ARISING FROM EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS OR OTHER INCIDENTS. — Except by way of a petition filed in accordance with this Rule, no appeal from the order or resolution issued by the Labor Arbiter during the execution proceedings or in relation to incidents other than a decision or disposition of the case on the merits, shall be allowed or acted upon by the Commission.

Rule 12, Section 1 provides that, instead of an appeal, the proper remedy is a verified petition to annul or modify the assailed order or resolution:

SECTION 1. VERIFIED PETITION. — A party aggrieved by any order or resolution of the Labor Arbiter including those issued during execution proceedings may file a verified petition to annul or modify such order or resolution. The petition may be accompanied by an application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary or permanent injunction to enjoin the Labor Arbiter, or any person acting under his/her authority, to desist from enforcing said resolution or order.

Nevertheless, while it was an error for petitioner to seek relief from the National Labor Relations Commission through an appeal, it is in the better interest of justice that petitioner be afforded the opportunity to avail herself of the reliefs that this Court itself, in its November 23, 2009 ruling, found to be due to her.

It is a basic principle that the National Labor Relations Commission is "not bound by strict rules of evidence and of procedure." 17 Between two modes of action — first, one that entails a liberal application of rules but affords full relief to an illegally dismissed employee; and second, one that entails the strict application of procedural rules but the possible loss of reliefs properly due to an illegally dismissed employee — the second must be preferred. Thus, it is more appropriate for the National Labor Relations Commission to have instead considered the appeal filed before it as a petition to modify or annul.

WHEREFORE, the appeal initiated by petitioner Adela Velasco before the National Labor Relations Commission is considered a Petition to Modify or Annul the Labor Arbiter's assailed March 8, 2012 Order.

This case is REMANDED to the National Labor Relations Commission for it to resolve the Petition with dispatch.

SO ORDERED." EcTCAD

(Brion, J., on official leave.)

Very truly yours,

 

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 14-49. This Petition was filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. Id. at 54-61. The Decision, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 128060, was penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Jane Aurora C. Lantion of the Eighth Division, Court of Appeals Manila.

3. Id. at 63-64. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and concurred by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Jane Aurora C. Lantion of the Eighth Division, Court of Appeals Manila.

4. Id. at 61.

5. Id. at 54-55.

6. Id. at 56.

7. Id.

8. Id. at 56-57.

9. No copy of this order was annexed to the present petition.

10. Rollo, p. 57.

11. No copy of this Notice was annexed to the present petition.

12. Rollo, p. 57.

13. No copy of this Order was annexed to the present petition.

14. Rollo, p. 57.

15. Id. at 54-61.

16. Id. at 63-34.

17. Gelmart Industries v. Leogardo, 239 Phil. 386, 391 (1987) [Per J. Cortes, Third Division].