G.R. No. 161596 ; February 20, 2013
ROBERTO BORDOMEO, JAYME SARMIENTO and GREGORIO BARREDO, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR, and INTERNATIONAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Roberto Bordomeo, Jayme Sarmiento, and Gregorio Barredo were among the employees ordered reinstated with backwages by the Secretary of Labor in a 1991 decision arising from a labor dispute with International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (IPI). After the Supreme Court affirmed the Labor Secretary’s orders, the Union moved for execution. The DOLE Regional Director issued a Notice of Computation/Execution in 1995, which included not only the 50 employees specifically named in the 1991 order but also others deemed “similarly situated.” IPI complied partially, reinstating some employees and making payments. Petitioners, however, contended that the execution was incomplete and filed various motions with the DOLE to compel full payment of the monetary award.
The DOLE Secretary ultimately issued an Order in 2001 declaring the case closed and terminated, noting that the 1998 Order (which addressed the execution issues) had become final. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing grave abuse of discretion in the closure of the case. The CA dismissed their petition, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petitioners’ special civil action for certiorari.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The core legal principle is that certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal. In this case, the petitioners assailed the DOLE Secretary’s 2001 Order which was a reiteration of a final 1998 Order. They had the remedy of an appeal from that 1998 Order to the Office of the President, which they did not avail themselves of. Having allowed the 1998 Order to become final and executory, they could not later resort to certiorari to challenge the 2001 Order which merely affirmed it. The alleged grave abuse of discretion was not present, as the Secretary’s act of terminating the case, given the finality of the prior order, was a proper exercise of jurisdiction. The Court further noted that the specific claims of petitioners Bordomeo and Barredo had already been settled in a related case, and Sarmiento was not even among the original 50 employees listed in the 1991 decision, thus lacking legal standing on that particular award.