GR 162739; (February, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 162739 ; February 12, 2008
AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-SANTIAGO CITY, INC., petitioner, vs. CHELLY P. NACINO, substituted by the Heirs of Chelly P. Nacino, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner AMA Computer College dismissed its employee, Chelly P. Nacino, for alleged abandonment and false testimony. Nacino filed a complaint for illegal suspension and termination. The parties executed a Submission Agreement, accepting the jurisdiction of a Voluntary Arbitrator. They subsequently entered into a Compromise Agreement, wherein Nacino agreed to discharge all claims for a sum of money. However, before the check for the settlement amount was released, Nacino died in an accident. The Voluntary Arbitrator then rendered a Decision ordering Nacino’s reinstatement and payment of backwages, ruling that the compromise agreement was effectively withdrawn due to AMA’s failure to pay the consideration.
AMA filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, assailing the Voluntary Arbitrator’s Decision and a subsequent Writ of Execution. The CA dismissed the petition outright, holding that it was a wrong mode of appeal. The CA ruled that the proper remedy from a decision of a Voluntary Arbitrator is a petition for review under Rule 43, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a serious error of law in dismissing AMA’s Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The Court reiterated the settled doctrine that decisions of Voluntary Arbitrators are appealable to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule is based on the principle that a Voluntary Arbitrator, in resolving labor disputes, is considered a quasi-judicial agency whose decisions are final and executory but subject to judicial review. Rule 43 provides the specific and appropriate remedy for such review.
A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Since a Rule 43 petition was available to AMA, the resort to Rule 65 was procedurally flawed. The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is not a natural right but a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the law. Procedural rules are designed to ensure the orderly administration of justice, and their observance is mandatory. The CA correctly dismissed the petition for being a wrong mode of appeal, and the Supreme Court found no compelling reason to deviate from this established procedural rule.