G.R. No. 116884 March 26, 1998
RIZALINO Z. ALCOSERO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FIFTH DIVISION), COMMISSIONERS MUSIB M. BUAT, OSCAR F. ABELLA, LEON G. GONZAGA, JR. and APEX MINING COMPANY, INC., respondents.

FACTS

On October 31, 1985, The Security Professionals, Inc. (TSPI) entered into a contract with Apex Mining Co., Inc. (APEX) to supply security personnel for APEX’s Masara minesite operations. Petitioners were assigned as security personnel pursuant to this agreement. In 1992, APEX closed its Masara minesite due to serious business losses. On July 21, 1992, Rizalino Z. Alcosero, for himself and on behalf of 260 other complainants, filed a claim with the DOLE for unpaid wages and 13th month pay against APEX. During a conference before Labor Arbiter Antonio M. Villanueva, APEX, represented by its counsel and officer-in-charge, admitted liability for unpaid wages and 13th month pay for the calendar year 1990 amounting to P3,225,110.52 but denied the rest of the claim. The Labor Arbiter issued an order on August 3, 1992, directing APEX to pay this uncontested amount. APEX subsequently paid this amount in December 1992 and January 1993, and the complainants signed corresponding receipts and quitclaims.
Later, complainants asserted that these payments pertained only to their 1990 claims. They submitted another certificate of net collectibles for 1991 and 1992, adding claims for vacation and sick leave pay and uniform allowances. APEX repeatedly failed to file its required position paper. The Labor Arbiter eventually rendered a decision awarding the remaining 136 complainants a total of P5,287,055.29 plus attorney’s fees. APEX appealed to the NLRC. Instead of posting an appeal bond, APEX filed a motion for reduction of the bond seven days after receiving the Labor Arbiter’s decision. On May 4, 1994, the NLRC promulgated a resolution finding that APEX had already paid all claims due to the complainants as evidenced by the individual receipts and quitclaims, which were not alleged to have been signed under force or pressure. The NLRC vacated the Labor Arbiter’s decision and dismissed the case. Petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 without first filing a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC resolution.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is procedurally infirm for failure to file a prior motion for reconsideration before the NLRC.
2. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the individual receipts and quitclaims executed by the petitioners were valid and constituted full settlement of their claims.

RULING

1. Yes, the petition is procedurally infirm. The filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the institution of a special civil action for certiorari, as it affords the tribunal an opportunity to correct its errors. Petitioners’ explanation for their failure—that their former representative, Rizalino Z. Alcosero, refused to sign the necessary submissions and there was a delay in contacting other complainants—is not a recognized exception to this rule. Certiorari cannot be used to shield petitioners from the consequences of their own omission. Furthermore, the decision of the NLRC becomes final and executory after ten calendar days from receipt if no motion for reconsideration is filed. The remedy of a motion for reconsideration was plain, speedy, and adequate.
2. No, the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The NLRC’s finding that the individual receipts and quitclaims were valid is supported by the evidence. There was no allegation that the complainants were forced or pressured into signing these documents. The law requires that the appeal bond must be posted within ten calendar days from receipt of the Labor Arbiter’s decision to perfect an appeal. While the NLRC may allow a reduction of the bond upon motion, such motion must still be filed within the ten-day reglementary period. APEX filed its motion for reduction seven days after receiving the decision, which was within the period. Therefore, the NLRC did not act with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the appeal. The petition is DISMISSED.