GR 45875; (September, 1977) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-45875 September 27, 1977
CENTRAL TEXTILE MILLS EMPLOYEES WELFARE UNION-PFL, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE RONALDO B. ZAMORA, CENTRAL TEXTILE MILLS, INC. and HORACIO Q. BORROMEO, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner union filed this certiorari proceeding to assail an order issued by Presidential Assistant Ronaldo B. Zamora. The order limited the backwages of certain laid-off employees to a period of six months. The union sought full backwages from the time of layoff until reinstatement. The case originated from a decision of a voluntary arbitrator ordering reinstatement with full backwages. The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed this decision. However, the Secretary of Labor reversed it, finding substantial compliance with the required clearance and ordering only separation benefits.
Upon appeal to the Office of the President, respondent Zamora reversed the Secretary of Labor’s order and reinstated the NLRC decision favoring the workers. However, on reconsideration, Zamora modified the award by limiting backwages to six months. The union now challenges this modification, arguing primarily that the company’s appeal to the Secretary of Labor was filed beyond the reglementary period, rendering the NLRC decision final and executory.
ISSUE
Whether the order of respondent Zamora limiting backwages to six months is valid, considering the petitioner’s claim that the appeal to the Secretary of Labor was filed out of time, thereby rendering the NLRC decision final.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The legal logic centers on the timeliness of the appeal and the scope of executive discretion. The petitioner’s argument that the appeal was filed late is without merit. The applicable rules at the time the appeal was taken on April 18, 1975, were those of the New Labor Code, which provided a ten-day period for appeal. The company received the NLRC decision on April 8, 1975, and filed its appeal on April 18, 1975, which was precisely within the ten-day reglementary period. Procedural rules can be applied retroactively, as there is no vested right in a rule of procedure.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the order of respondent Zamora was a legitimate exercise of the discretion vested in the Executive Department. Administrative bodies performing quasi-judicial functions are not strictly bound by technical rules of procedure, and their decisions are accorded respect. The judiciary will not interfere with such discretionary acts in the absence of a clear showing of arbitrariness, caprice, or a jurisdictional infirmity amounting to a denial of due process. No such showing was made in this case. The petition, therefore, lacked substantive weight. The separation of powers doctrine dictates that the judiciary must avoid trenching upon the legitimate sphere of a coordinate branch.