G.R. No. 104302 , July 14, 1999
REBECCA R. VELOSO, petitioner, vs. CHINA AIRLINES, LTD., K.Y. CHANG and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rebecca R. Veloso was employed as the supervisor of the ticketing section at the Manila branch office of respondent China Airlines, Ltd. (CAL). On October 29, 1986, private respondent K.Y. Chang, the district manager, informed petitioner that management decided to temporarily close the ticketing section to prevent further losses, and she and her three assistants were laid off effective October 30, 1986. Subsequently, CAL decided to permanently close the section. On November 5, 1986, petitioner and her staff were informed that their lay-off would be considered permanent, effective one month from notice. A notice of retrenchment was filed with the labor department on November 11, 1986. Petitioner later received advice to claim her retirement pay and benefits. Feeling aggrieved, she sent a letter to Chang assailing the validity of her termination. On July 1, 1987, she filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal with the NLRC Arbitration Branch, praying for reinstatement, backwages, damages, and attorney’s fees. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor on June 8, 1990, declaring the dismissal illegal and respondents guilty of unfair labor practice, ordering reinstatement with backwages and awarding substantial damages. Private respondents appealed to the NLRC, which, in a Resolution dated January 2, 1992, set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The NLRC found no factual or legal basis for the unfair labor practice charge, noting petitioner was merely a union adviser without formal designation and that only the ticketing section was affected by retrenchment, with no union officers laid off. It declared the retrenchment valid and ordered payment of retrenchment pay instead. Petitioner received a copy of this NLRC Resolution on January 7, 1992. Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC, she filed the instant petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court, alleging that a motion for reconsideration would be futile and would injure her right to a speedy and unbiased judgment.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 should be given due course despite petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC Resolution as required by law and jurisprudence.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable prerequisite to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as it affords the NLRC an opportunity to rectify any errors before resort to the courts. Certiorari lies only if there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; here, the adequate remedy was a motion for reconsideration filed under oath within ten (10) days from receipt of the NLRC resolution, a procedure that is jurisdictional. By not filing such a motion, petitioner violated prevailing jurisprudence. Furthermore, without a seasonably filed motion for reconsideration, the NLRC Resolution became final and executory after ten calendar days from receipt. Since petitioner received the Resolution on January 7, 1992, it became final on January 17, 1992. Consequently, the merits of her case could no longer be reviewed to determine if there was grave abuse of discretion. The Court therefore sustained the dismissal of the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the NLRC Resolution dated January 2, 1992.