GR 145855; (November, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 145855 November 24, 2004
Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc., petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals, and Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. Employees & Workers Union (UOEF No. 70) represented by its incumbent president, Isidro Realista, respondents.
FACTS
Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. Employees and Workers Union (PCEWU) filed a complaint against Pepsi-Cola Distributors of the Philippines (PCDP), the petitioner’s predecessor, for payment of overtime pay rendered by 53 members on eight designated Muslim holidays in 1985. The employees were assigned in Iligan City, Tubod, Lanao del Norte, and Dipolog City. The union claimed they were previously paid for such holidays and submitted a certification from the Regional Autonomous Government listing the eight holidays. PCDP countered that only five Muslim holidays were legal under P.D. No. 1083 (Muslim Code), that Dipolog City was not an area officially observing them, and that the benefit applied only to Muslim employees.
The Executive Labor Arbiter (ELA) ruled in favor of the union, ordering payment for eight holidays for workers in Iligan and Tubod (Region 12) and for five holidays for those in Dipolog (Region 9), concluding that only Region 12 had legislated three additional holidays. PCDP appealed to the NLRC, which reversed the ELA, dismissing the case on the merits. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration. While these motions were pending, the NLRC issued a subsequent resolution dismissing the entire case for lack of jurisdiction, claiming the appeal was filed out of time. The union then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in setting aside the NLRC decision and reinstating the ELA decision.
RULING
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It held that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error. The CA correctly nullified the NLRC’s second resolution which dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, as this resolution was issued while motions for reconsideration of the NLRC’s first decision on the merits were still pending. However, the CA overstepped its authority under a Rule 65 certiorari petition when it proceeded to reinstate the ELA’s decision.
The CA’s jurisdiction in a certiorari proceeding is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. By reinstating the ELA’s decision, the CA effectively reviewed and reversed the NLRC’s decision on the merits, which constitutes an unwarranted examination of the case’s substance. This was a usurpation of authority. The proper course of action for the CA, after nullifying the void NLRC resolution, was to remand the case to the NLRC with an order to resolve the still-pending motions for reconsideration. Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the CA decision, affirming the nullification of the NLRC’s dismissal resolution but directing the NLRC to resolve the pending motions with dispatch.