G.R. No. 94279 June 26, 1992
RAFAEL G. PALMA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE THIRD DIVISION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and SAMAHANG MAGSASAKA, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rafael G. Palma had been employed since 1965 as a meter reader and bill distributor by respondent Samahang Magsasaka, Inc. (SMI). On December 20, 1983, SMI’s Board of Directors passed Resolution No. 90-83 ordering Palma’s dismissal from service for dishonesty, specifically for being caught connecting jumpers or similar devices to steal electricity from the company. Palma filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on January 5, 1984, alleging he was denied due process because sworn statements from customers (Juanito R. Lopez, Cenon Buse, Jr., and Elsie Jardiel) were taken only after the dismissal resolution was passed. SMI alleged the dismissal was for serious misconduct, fraud, and willful breach of trust based on these sworn statements, which indicated estimated losses of P7,958.80. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on March 12, 1985, finding SMI liable for illegal dismissal and ordering Palma’s immediate reinstatement with full backwages, reasoning that the affidavits were insufficient and the witnesses were not impartial. SMI appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC Second Division initially dismissed the appeal as late but, on motion for reconsideration, gave it due course. Ultimately, on August 8, 1986, the Second Division dismissed SMI’s appeal, finding no reversible error in the Labor Arbiter’s decision. Subsequently, the NLRC Third Division, acting as Commission en banc, rendered a decision on January 31, 1990, granting SMI’s “Motion for Reconsideration (appeal to the Commission en banc),” setting aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision, upholding Palma’s dismissal as justified, but ordering SMI to pay Palma P1,644.00 as indemnity for non-compliance with due process. Palma filed this petition for certiorari, alleging the NLRC Third Division committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC Third Division committed grave abuse of discretion in entertaining and granting SMI’s “Appeal to the Commission en banc” (treated as a motion for reconsideration) of the NLRC Second Division’s resolution dated August 8, 1986.

RULING

Yes, the NLRC Third Division committed grave abuse of discretion. The Revised Rules of the NLRC prohibit a division from resolving motions for reconsideration of the orders, resolutions, or decisions of another division; such motions must be resolved by the division of origin (in this case, the Second Division). Furthermore, SMI’s motion was filed out of time; it received the Second Division’s resolution on September 9, 1986, but filed its motion on September 22, 1986, which was three days past the 10-day reglementary period. The resolution had become final and executory on September 20, 1986. Additionally, the rules allow only one motion for reconsideration. SMI’s “Appeal to the Commission en banc” was a second motion, which the rules do not permit. Therefore, the Third Division exceeded its jurisdiction. The petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The decision dated January 31, 1990 of the NLRC Third Division is annulled and set aside. The resolution of the NLRC Second Division dated August 8, 1986 is reinstated, but the award of backwages to petitioner is limited to three (3) years in accordance with existing jurisprudence.