GR 159010; (November, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 159010 , November 19, 2004
NIPPON PAINT EMPLOYEES UNION-OLALIA in behalf of ADONIS GUANSING, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NIPPON PAINT PHILS., INC. and HON. VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR BERNARDINO M. VOLANTE, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Nippon Paint Employees Union (NPEU) and respondent Nippon Paint Phils., Inc. (NPPI) were engaged in collective bargaining negotiations that ended in a deadlock, prompting a notice of strike. During the pendency of this labor dispute, NPEU Secretary Adonis Guansing was interviewed by a newspaper. The published article quoted Guansing questioning the company’s claim of financial losses, citing market share and SEC declarations, and attributing management problems to the Singaporean owners who took over. Based on this, NPPI charged Guansing with violating a company rule against engaging in activities conflicting with company interests and, after due process, dismissed him.
Guansing, represented by NPEU, filed an illegal dismissal complaint. The parties submitted the case to voluntary arbitration. Voluntary Arbitrator Bernardino Volante ruled the dismissal was legal but awarded Guansing P40,000 as “compassionate justice.” NPEU then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals to challenge this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed NPEU’s petition for certiorari under Rule 65 for being an improper mode of appeal from the decision of a voluntary arbitrator.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the wrong remedy. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of a voluntary arbitrator’s decisions and the proper modes of appeal. Under prevailing law and jurisprudence, a voluntary arbitrator is considered a “quasi-judicial instrumentality.” Consequently, awards or decisions of voluntary arbitrators are expressly subject to appeal to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, not via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
A Rule 65 petition is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is “no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” It is not a substitute for a lost appeal; the remedies are mutually exclusive. The Court found that NPEU resorted to Rule 65 precisely because it had lost the right to a Rule 43 appeal, having filed its petition 45 days after the expiration of the 15-day reglementary period. Furthermore, the allegations in its petition essentially questioned the voluntary arbitrator’s factual and legal conclusions, which is the function of an appeal, not a certiorari proceeding which is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion. No compelling reason was presented to justify a deviation from this procedural rule.