G.R. No. 90338; August 9, 1991
JAIME T. TORRES, petitioner, vs. FIRST DIVISION, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND LOTA ALAFRIZ, MARIVIC VALDEVISO, ANNABELLE FABRO AND LEYLITA LAWIG, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents were teachers at St. James Child Care Center, owned by petitioner Jaime T. Torres. In September 1985, the school issued a memorandum requiring teachers to submit their original transcripts of records by October 5, 1985, warning that failure would result in withheld salaries. The private respondents failed to comply by the deadline for various reasons, and their salaries were consequently withheld. On October 7, 1985, they were absent from their classes. Upon reporting for work later, they received their salaries but were barred from resuming their duties.
The teachers filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, ordering reinstatement and payment of backwages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision but modified the backwages to a period of one year. Petitioner subsequently filed an urgent motion for clarification, contesting the computation of the award, including the inclusion of Emergency Cost of Living Allowance (ECOLA) and the period covered, before filing this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 should be granted to nullify the NLRC resolutions affirming the illegal dismissal and the monetary awards to the private respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The legal logic rests on procedural grounds and the petitioner’s implied admissions. First, the petition was filed unreasonably late, seeking to annul an NLRC resolution from October 1987 only in October 1989, violating the requirement that certiorari be filed within a reasonable time. Second, even setting aside this lapse, the petitioner is deemed to have admitted the core findings of illegal dismissal and the entitlement to ECOLA. By filing only a motion for clarification focused on the computation of the monetary award before the NLRC, the petitioner effectively accepted the underlying rulings on liability. Issues not raised on appeal before the NLRC, such as the propriety of the ECOLA award, become final and cannot be reviewed. Furthermore, the petitioner’s challenge regarding the employment contract period involves a question of fact, which is beyond the scope of certiorari as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Thus, the NLRC resolutions were affirmed.