G.R. No. 143823; March 6, 2001
JENNIFER ABRAHAM, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE INSTITUTE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION (PITE) and SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR JAIME MAGNANAO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jennifer Abraham filed a complaint for constructive dismissal and monetary claims against respondents PITE and its administrator. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Arbiter and awarded Abraham backwages, separation pay, and other monetary benefits. However, upon respondents’ motion for reconsideration, the NLRC reversed itself and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal.
Abraham filed a Petition for Certiorari directly with the Court of Appeals, challenging the NLRC’s final resolution. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on a procedural ground, ruling that Abraham failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC’s reversal order before resorting to certiorari. Abraham sought Supreme Court review, arguing the motion for reconsideration was not mandatory under the amended rules or, alternatively, that her case fell under recognized exceptions.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari due to petitioner’s failure to file a prior motion for reconsideration with the NLRC.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It held that while the general rule requires a motion for reconsideration before filing a certiorari petition to afford the tribunal an opportunity to correct its errors, recognized exceptions exist. The Court found the present case fell under the exception where a motion for reconsideration would be useless.
The legal logic is that the NLRC had already thoroughly reviewed and decided the substantive merits of the case twice—first in its reversal of the Labor Arbiter, and again in its subsequent reversal upon reconsideration. Given that the NLRC had already vacillated and ultimately reinstated its original dismissal, it was highly improbable it would reverse itself a second time. Therefore, requiring another motion for reconsideration would be a futile exercise. Consequently, the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition on purely procedural grounds. The Supreme Court reversed the CA’s resolutions and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to properly adjudicate the certiorari petition on its substantive merits. The High Court refrained from ruling on the substantive issues of constructive dismissal and monetary claims itself, as these factual matters were for the appellate court to review first.