GR 178593; (February, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 178593; February 15, 2012
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the PRIVATIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE (PMO), Petitioner, vs. PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC. (PNEI), PANTRANCO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEA-PTGWO), EUSEBIO RAMOSO, CIRIACO M. MAGSINO, A. CACHUELA, A. CAMUS, M. CALAHI, R. CANO, B.T. LANTANO, L. BERSAMINA, A. ALFARO and 495 OTHERS, Respondents.
FACTS
The case originated from a 1993 Labor Arbiter decision ordering Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI) to pay monetary awards to illegally retrenched employees. The judgment became final and executory, but after partial satisfaction, a significant balance remained. To satisfy this, a sheriff levied upon properties located at the Pantranco compound. The Privatization and Management Office (PMO) filed a third-party claim, asserting ownership over the levied assets. PMO argued that PNEI’s loans from government financial institutions led to a dacion en pago and subsequent foreclosure, transferring the assets to the Asset Privatization Trust (PMO’s predecessor) in trust for the Republic. Thus, PMO contended these assets were no longer PNEI property and could not be used to satisfy the labor judgment.
The Labor Arbiter and, on appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), denied PMO’s third-party claim. The NLRC found PMO failed to substantiate its claim of ownership and noted a similar claim had been denied in a prior 1994 order. Without filing a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC’s September 27, 2006 Resolution, PMO directly filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed the petition for being premature due to PMO’s failure to first file a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC.
ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing PMO’s petition for certiorari for failure to file a prior motion for reconsideration with the NLRC?
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The filing of a motion for reconsideration is a mandatory precondition to the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. This requirement allows the tribunal an opportunity to correct its own errors and is indispensable, except in specific, well-defined exceptions. PMO invoked several purported exceptions, arguing that filing a motion would be useless, the matter was urgent, it involved a pure question of law, public interest was involved, and irreparable damage would result.
The Supreme Court found none of these exceptions applicable. The Court held that PMO’s arguments on the merits of its ownership claim did not justify bypassing the procedural rule. The necessity of a motion for reconsideration was particularly compelling here, as it would have allowed the NLRC to review its decision in light of PMO’s substantive arguments regarding asset ownership. Furthermore, on the substantive issue, the Court cited its ruling in Asset Privatization Trust v. Court of Appeals, which established that the APT/PMO, as a trustee, holds assets subject to all valid claims against the privatized entity. Therefore, PNEI’s assets remained subject to execution for the valid labor claims of its employees. The procedural lapse was fatal, and the CA correctly dismissed the petition.