GR 148628; (February, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148628 ; February 28, 2007
JOSE SALINAS, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. DIGITAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, former employees of the Government Regional Telephone System (GRTS), were hired on a six-month probationary basis by respondent Digital Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (Digitel) after it won the bid to privatize GRTS. Prior to the end of their probation, Digitel evaluated petitioners’ performance and found it unsatisfactory. Petitioners were notified of their termination after they refused to acknowledge the evaluation report.
Petitioners filed an illegal dismissal complaint. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in their favor, but the NLRC remanded the case for further hearing. After rehearing, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, ruling petitioners were validly terminated as probationary employees who failed to meet reasonable standards. The NLRC affirmed this decision. Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC resolution, petitioners directly filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari for failure to file a prior motion for reconsideration before the NLRC.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal based on a procedural lapse, not the merits of the dismissal case. The special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 requires that there be no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In labor cases, a motion for reconsideration filed within ten days from receipt of an NLRC resolution is a plain and adequate remedy, and its filing is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a certiorari petition.
This requirement affords the NLRC an opportunity to correct any error and promotes expeditious resolution of labor disputes, helping decongest court dockets. While exceptions exist, petitioners bore the burden of proving their case clearly fell under one. Their mere claim of having “waited long enough” was an insufficient justification, constituting a lame excuse for a fatal omission. They failed to provide any explanation in their Court of Appeals petition for bypassing the motion for reconsideration. Consequently, the NLRC resolution had become final and executory. Certiorari is not a remedy to shield a party from the consequences of procedural neglect.