GR 118397; (March, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 118397 March 27, 1998
MANILA MIDTOWN HOTELS & LAND CORP., ROBINSON’S INN, INC., JOHN GOKONGWEI, JR. and OLIVE G. BEGRE, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), ILDEFONSO M. SARINO, REYNOLD GUMIRAN, EDWIN DEGUIT, VIRGILIO G. FANIA, NICANOR M. ILLANZA, JR., FERNANDO A. EROJO, GINA B. SIOSON, ROWENA A. BERMEJO, ROSEMARIE Z. VICTORIO, NOEL DELA CRUZ, HELEN B. DEPOSO, EMELIANO DEGUIT, WELMAR R. PANIZALES, ROLANDO P. PANTIG, JOSEFINO M. SERVIDAL, MARINO G. BACAN, NOLI S. DE GUZMAN, PABLO J. JUNIO, RUEL L. GENECIRAN, NELIA T. ALCALA, JULIE B. BAUTISTA, ARELY F. GOTEZA, MARIO T. TRAGONA, MARIO M. CUENCA, ANTONIO M. AUDITOR, JUDY V. NAD, ROSARIO MANA-AY, RAMIL MADLA, JOSE CHITO FUYOC, MURPHY DIMAN, FLORO AGPAUA, CONRADO BALDERAMA, VIRGILIO BAGON, ROSEMARIE ZERNA, JULIETA SODUSTA, ZALMA CRESOSTOMO, SUSAN VILLARAMA, SAMUEL LAGGUI, LORELIE B. ALEJO, TEOFILO ESTIPULAR, WILFREDO S. DINGLE, ROSY TUMANDAY, ANDREW M. FALCULAN, RENATO R. ERES, JOSEPHINE G. CONCEPCION, ALMA FACTURA, RICHEL D. BOLINA, DIOBERTO M. CALUMBA, DEMEO DELA CRUZ, respondents.
FACTS
Confidential Investigation and Security Corporation (CISCOR) is a corporation providing security services to clients, including petitioners Manila Midtown Hotel and Robinson’s Inn, Inc. Private respondents were hired as security guards by CISCOR and assigned to these petitioners. On October 9, 1991, private respondents filed a complaint against CISCOR and the petitioners for illegal dismissal and various money claims. During proceedings, 28 complainants filed a motion to dismiss after an amicable settlement. Petitioners contended that under their contracts with CISCOR, the latter was solely responsible for the private respondents’ claims, and they were not privy to the employer-employee relationship. On December 23, 1992, while the case was pending before the Labor Arbiter, petitioners and CISCOR executed a Quitclaim and Release. On November 29, 1993, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of private respondents, ordering CISCOR and petitioners to jointly and severally pay the money claims. CISCOR did not appeal, but petitioners challenged the decision before the NLRC. On December 21, 1994, the NLRC modified the monetary awards but upheld the solidary liability of CISCOR and the petitioners. Petitioners filed the instant petition without first filing a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision.
ISSUE
Whether the petition should be dismissed due to petitioners’ failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision before resorting to certiorari.
RULING
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. The failure to file a motion for reconsideration is fatal and warrants outright dismissal. A motion for reconsideration is an indispensable prerequisite to a petition for certiorari, as it affords the NLRC an opportunity to correct any errors. The requirement is jurisdictional and not a mere technicality. Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, and parties must observe the rules, including the submission of required documents. The non-filing of the motion renders the assailed decision final and executory after the reglementary period, precluding a review on the merits. The omission of petitioners’ counsel was inexcusable, as the necessity of a motion for reconsideration had been consistently stressed in jurisprudence. Procedural rules must be followed except for the most persuasive reasons.