GR 123636; (March, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 123636; March 31, 2000
JOSELITO LAGERA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Joselito Lagera was hired as a security guard by Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) under a contract renewable monthly based on passing company standards. On April 13, 1994, a company vehicle carrying Lagera and other guards met an accident. PNCC’s security officer immediately investigated. When summoned, Lagera refused to give a statement, saying he would “think over the matter.” Summoned again after three days, he still refused to cooperate, stating he was “not yet in his proper mind.” Asked to explain why his contract should still be renewed, he replied, “No comment ako diyan sir.” Consequently, PNCC did not renew his employment effective May 1, 1994.
Lagera filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, ordering reinstatement with backwages. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision, declaring the dismissal valid due to Lagera’s failure to meet company standards, though it noted procedural lapse and ordered PNCC to pay indemnity. Lagera received the NLRC decision on November 27, 1995, but did not file a motion for reconsideration. Instead, he filed directly with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court can entertain the petition for certiorari despite the petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court emphasized that a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable prerequisite to a certiorari petition. This requirement affords the NLRC an opportunity to correct any errors before resorting to judicial review. Certiorari is only available when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Here, the plain remedy was a motion for reconsideration filed within the ten-day reglementary period from receipt of the NLRC decision. By not filing such a motion, Lagera allowed the NLRC decision to become final and executory on December 7, 1995. Consequently, the merits of the case regarding the validity of his dismissal could no longer be reviewed. The procedural lapse was jurisdictional, barring the Supreme Court from assessing whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The assailed NLRC decision was therefore affirmed.