GR 175251; (May, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175251 ; May 30, 2011
RODOLFO LUNA, Petitioner, vs. ALLADO CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., and/or RAMON ALLADO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Rodolfo Luna filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents Allado Construction Co., Inc. and its President, Ramon Allado. Luna alleged he was a continuous employee, serving as a warehouseman and timekeeper on the respondents’ various construction projects. On November 24, 2001, he was given a travel order to report to the main office in Davao City for reassignment. Upon arrival on November 26, 2001, he was instructed by the personnel manager to sign several “Contract of Project Employment” documents. He refused to sign and, consequently, was not given any reassignment or work. Respondents countered that Luna applied for and was granted a leave of absence from November 29 to December 6, 2001. After his leave, he was advised to report to a new project site but refused and instead claimed illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal, finding that Luna should be deemed to have resigned. However, the Arbiter ordered respondents to pay Luna ₱18,000.00 as financial assistance. Only respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), questioning solely the propriety of the financial assistance award. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, declared respondents guilty of illegal dismissal, and ordered them to pay separation pay and full backwages. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, set aside the NLRC’s orders, reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, and deleted the award of financial assistance. The Court of Appeals held it was grave abuse of discretion for the NLRC to rule on illegal dismissal when the only issue on appeal was the financial assistance. Luna’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
1. Whether the NLRC could review issues not raised on appeal, specifically the issue of illegal dismissal, when the appeal was limited to questioning the award of financial assistance.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the NLRC’s findings of fact, the principle of social justice, and jurisprudence on financial assistance.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals exhibited bias and partiality.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals.
1. On the NLRC’s Power to Review Issues Not Raised on Appeal: The NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by ruling on the issue of illegal dismissal. At the time, Section 4(c), Rule VI of the 2002 NLRC Rules of Procedure (retained in the 2005 Revised Rules) expressly provided that once an appeal is perfected, “the Commission shall limit itself to reviewing and deciding specific issues that were elevated on appeal.” Respondents’ appeal was limited to challenging the financial assistance award. Therefore, the Labor Arbiter’s finding that there was no illegal dismissal (but only a resignation) had become final and executory. The NLRC’s inherent power under Article 218(c) of the Labor Code to “correct, amend, or waive any error, defect or irregularity whether in substance or in form” cannot be invoked to justify reviewing an unappealed issue that has attained finality. The procedural rule is clear and binding.
2. On the Court of Appeals’ Alleged Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Its decision was based on a correct application of procedural rules regarding the scope of appeal. The principle of social justice cannot be used to justify a disregard of procedural rules that have already attained finality. Furthermore, the award of financial assistance by the Labor Arbiter was improper. Financial assistance is generally not awarded in cases of voluntary resignation, as was the factual finding in the Labor Arbiter’s final and executory decision.
3. On the Allegation of Bias and Partiality: The Supreme Court found no evidence to support the claim of bias and partiality against the Court of Appeals. The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo pending resolution of the certiorari petition is a legitimate exercise of judicial discretion and does not, by itself, indicate bias.