GR 187418; (September, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 187418, September 28, 2015
Rapid Manpower Consultants, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Eduardo P. De Guzman, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Eduardo P. de Guzman was employed as a technician in Saudi Arabia through petitioner Rapid Manpower Consultants, Inc., under a two-year contract with a monthly salary of SR1,500.00. After his deployment, De Guzman filed a complaint for non-payment of salaries from October 2001 to June 2002, underpayment of salaries, vacation pay, and travel expenses. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of De Guzman, ordering Rapid Manpower and its foreign principal to pay monetary claims. The NLRC initially reversed this decision, finding De Guzman failed to substantiate his claims. Upon De Guzman’s motion for reconsideration, the NLRC issued a Resolution reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision, holding that the employer has the burden to prove payment of correct wages. Aggrieved, Rapid Manpower filed a petition for certiorari directly with the Court of Appeals without first filing a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC’s latest Resolution. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition due to this failure. Rapid Manpower moved for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of Rapid Manpower’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the appellate court’s Resolutions and remanded the case for further proceedings. While a motion for reconsideration is generally an indispensable condition before filing a petition for certiorari, exceptions exist. The second exception applied here: where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court. The NLRC’s Resolution dated September 24, 2008, which was challenged, was itself issued in response to De Guzman’s motion for reconsideration. Thus, the NLRC had already been given the opportunity to review and reverse its own initial ruling. Requiring Rapid Manpower to file another motion for reconsideration would be futile, as the issues had already been evaluated. The Supreme Court cited the precedent in Abraham v. NLRC, which held it highly improbable for the NLRC to reverse itself again under such circumstances. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to resolve the factual issues on the merits.