G.R. No. 138270 ; June 28, 2001
SEA POWER SHIPPING ENTERPRISES INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ROSALINDA E. SAQUILON, respondents.

FACTS

Adonis Saguilon, husband of private respondent Rosalinda E. Saquilon, was recruited by Fil-Pride Shipping Co. Inc. to work as a fitter on board the vessel M/V Anne Gro. He commenced work on April 24, 1992. Barely over two months later, he was signed off for medical reasons, repatriated, hospitalized, and died on August 21, 1992. Private respondent filed a complaint for death and burial benefits and medical and sickness allowance before the POEA (later referred to the NLRC) against several entities, including petitioner Sea Power Shipping Enterprises Inc. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision ordering all respondents jointly and solidarily to pay medical and sickness allowance but dismissed the claim for death and burial benefits. On appeal, the NLRC modified the decision by absolving Fil-Pride Shipping Co. Inc. from liability, while the decision became final and executory as to the rest of the respondents, including petitioner, who allegedly did not appeal. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC, which was denied. Petitioner then assailed the NLRC decision before the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals outrightly dismissed the petition for failure to comply with procedural requirements under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically for not attaching certified true copies of several pertinent documents and for not filing a bond for the injunctive relief prayed for. The Court of Appeals also denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner’s petition for certiorari on procedural grounds and whether the Supreme Court should reverse the appellate court’s resolutions.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the petition is without merit and affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that petitioner availed of an improper remedy by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court instead of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which is the correct mode to appeal a judgment or final order of the Court of Appeals. This erroneous appeal warrants outright dismissal. Furthermore, the Court found that the Court of Appeals had sufficient basis to dismiss the petition for petitioner’s failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 65. The Court also noted that the issue of whether petitioner filed its appeal and whether it should be absolved like Fil-Pride involves questions of fact, which are not proper in a petition for certiorari, as such a petition is confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.