G.R. No. 201663, March 31, 2014
EMMANUEL M. OLORES, Petitioner, vs. MANILA DOCTORS COLLEGE and/or TERESITA O. TURLA, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Emmanuel M. Olores was hired as a part-time faculty by respondent Manila Doctors College in November 2005, later signing fixed-term contracts as a full-time instructor. For the second semester of AY 2009-2010, he was assigned to teach Bioethics and Philosophy of Man. He submitted final grades to the department chair, Mr. Jacinto Bernardo, Jr., who subsequently charged him with gross misconduct and gross inefficiency for allegedly employing a grading system not in accordance with the prescribed syllabus. The charges included adding points to raw scores, giving credits to non-attending students, not properly crediting examination components, and adding unauthorized incentives. Olores submitted an answer and also requested permanent status. A tribunal (MDT) was created, which found him culpable and recommended dismissal. His services were terminated on June 7, 2010.
Olores filed a case for illegal dismissal, regularization, and other monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter found he was illegally dismissed and ordered reinstatement without backwages or separation pay, but dismissed the regularization claim. Respondent appealed to the NLRC. Initially, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for non-perfection due to the employer’s failure to post the required appeal bond. Upon reconsideration, the NLRC reversed itself, granted the appeal, dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal, and only ordered payment of service incentive leave. Olores filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed the petition because Olores failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision before seeking certiorari. His motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondent’s appeal with the NLRC was perfected despite its failure to post a bond.
2. Whether the CA erred in dismissing petitioner’s Rule 65 petition for certiorari due to failure to file a prior motion for reconsideration with the NLRC.

RULING

1. On the perfection of the appeal: The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in eventually giving due course to the appeal. While the posting of a bond is mandatory for the perfection of an employer’s appeal involving a monetary award, the NLRC has the discretion to reduce the bond amount. The Labor Arbiter’s decision ordered reinstatement without backwages but gave the option of separation pay (P100,000). The reinstatement aspect is immediately executory. The monetary award for separation pay was conditional upon the employee’s choice, and the award for service incentive leave was not quantified. Under these circumstances, and following jurisprudence, the NLRC could validly entertain the appeal. The NLRC’s act of reconsidering its initial dismissal and ruling on the merits was within its discretionary power and did not constitute grave abuse of discretion.
2. On the dismissal of the certiorari petition: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The filing of a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite for a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as it allows the tribunal an opportunity to correct its errors. The NLRC Rules provide for such a motion as a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Olores failed to file a motion for reconsideration before resorting to the CA. He did not present any compelling reason to justify dispensing with this requirement. The recognized exceptions to the rule were not sufficiently proven to exist in this case. Therefore, the CA correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals.