GR 144075; (April, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 144075. April 19, 2006.
DAVAO MERCHANT MARINE ACADEMY, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND ALMA E. GARCIA, Respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Alma E. Garcia was hired by petitioner Davao Merchant Marine Academy (DMMA) as a teacher. She executed three successive fixed-term employment contracts covering specific semesters. During her third contract term, DMMA implemented a new salary computation formula, which Garcia questioned as it resulted in a diminution of pay. She formally wrote the Board of Trustees on October 12, 1995, expressing her concerns. On October 19, 1995, she was informed that DMMA was no longer comfortable working with her and that her employment would end on October 31, 1995, the contract’s expiry date. Garcia filed an illegal dismissal complaint. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, upholding the fixed-term contract. The NLRC reversed, finding the contracts a circumvention of security of tenure, and declared the dismissal illegal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Court of Appeals’ decision.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition outright due to a fatal procedural error. The petitioners sought relief via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The petitioners failed to show that the ordinary remedy of appeal via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 was unavailable. The Court of Appeals’ decision was a final order that disposed of the case, for which the proper remedy was an appeal under Rule 45. By erroneously availing of Rule 65 without justifying the absence of an appeal, the petition was dismissible on this procedural ground alone. The Court emphasized that a wrong choice of remedy warrants dismissal. Consequently, the Court did not reach the substantive merits of the illegal dismissal case, including the application of the Brent School doctrine on fixed-term employment.