St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC

11/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 11/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295
1/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new
Same; Same; Same; Jurisdiction; Statutes; The excepting

clause provided for in paragraph (3), Section 9 of B.P. No. 129, as
amended by R.A. No. 7902, contradicts what has been ruled and
said all along that appeal does not lie from decisions of the NLRC.
—It will, however, be noted that paragraph (3), Section 9 of B.P.
No. 129 now grants exclusive appellate jurisdiction to the Court of
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Appeals over all final adjudications of the Regional Trial Courts
and the quasi-judicial agencies generally or specifically referred to
St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC
therein except, among others, “those falling within the appellate
* jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with x x x the
G.R. No. 130866. September 16, 1998. Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442,
as amended, x x x.” This would necessarily contradict what has
ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOME, petitioner, vs. been ruled and said all along that appeal does not lie from
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and decisions of the NLRC. Yet, under such excepting clause literally
BIENVENIDO ARICAYOS, respondents. construed, the appeal from the NLRC cannot be brought to the
Court of Appeals, but to this Court by necessary implication.
Labor Law; Judicial Review; Appeals; Pleadings and Practice;
The Court feels that it is now exigent and opportune to reexamine Same; Same; Same; Same; There are no cases in the Labor
the functional validity and systemic practicability of the mode of Code the decisions, resolutions, orders or awards wherein are
judicial review it has long adopted and still follows with respect to within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or of any
decisions of the NLRC.—Before proceeding further into the merits other court for that matter.—The same exceptive clause further
of the case at bar, the Court feels that it is now exigent and confuses the situation by declaring that the Court of Appeals has
opportune to reexamine the functional validity and systemic no appellate jurisdiction over decisions falling within the
practicability of the mode of judicial review it has long adopted appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with
and still follows with respect to decisions of the NLRC. The the Constitution, the provisions of B.P. No. 129, and those
increasing number of labor disputes that find their way to this specified cases in Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. These
Court and the legislative changes introduced cases can, of course, be properly excluded from the exclusive
appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. However, because
of the aforementioned amendment by transposition, also
_______________
supposedly excluded are cases falling within the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Labor
* EN BANC.
Code. This is illogical and impracticable, and Congress could not
have intended that procedural gaffe, since there are no cases in
the Labor Code the decisions, resolutions, orders or awards
495
wherein are within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court or of any other court for that matter.
VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 16, 1998 495

496
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

over the years into the provisions of Presidential Decree (P.D.)
No. 442 (The Labor Code of the Philippines and Batas Pambansa St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC
Blg. (B.P. No.) 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980)
now stridently call for and warrant a reassessment of that Same; Same; Same; Same; Statutory Construction; A review of
procedural aspect. the legislative records on the antecedents of R.A. No. 7902
persuades the Court that there may have been an oversight in the
course of the deliberations on the said Act or an imprecision in the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001758178601372fc296c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/18 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001758178601372fc296c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/18
11/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 11/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new
terminology used therein.—A review of the legislative records on preted and hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions for
the antecedents of R.A. No. 7902 persuades us that there may certiorari under Rule 65—consequently, all such petitions should
have been an oversight in the course of the deliberations on the henceforth be initially filed in the Court of Appeals.—While we do
said Act or an imprecision in the terminology used therein. In not wish to intrude into the Congressional sphere on the matter of
fine, Congress did intend to provide for judicial review of the the wisdom of a law, on this score we add the further observations
adjudications of the NLRC in labor cases by the Supreme Court, that there is a growing number of labor cases being elevated to
but there was an inaccuracy in the term used for the intended this Court which, not being a trier of fact, has at times been
mode of review. This conclusion which we have reluctantly but constrained to remand the case to the NLRC for resolution of
prudently arrived at has been drawn from the considerations unclear or ambiguous factual findings; that the Court of Appeals
extant in the records of Congress, more particularly on Senate is procedurally equipped for that purpose, aside from the
Bill No. 1495 and the Reference Committee Report on S. No. increased number of its component divisions; and that there is
1495/H. No. 10452. undeniably an imperative need for expeditious action on labor
cases as a major aspect of constitutional protection to labor.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Certiorari; Pleadings and Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of B.P. No. 129
Practice; The Court is of the considered opinion that ever since to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are
appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court were eliminated, the interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions for
legislative intendment was that the special civil action of certiorari certiorari under Rule 65. Consequently, all such petitions should
was and still is the proper vehicle for judicial review of decisions of henceforth be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict
the NLRC; Appeals by certiorari and the original action for observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the
certiorari are both modes of judicial review addressed to the appropriate forum for the relief desired.
appellate courts.—The Court is, therefore, of the considered
opinion that ever since appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.
Court were eliminated, the legislative intendment was that the Certiorari.
special civil action of certiorari was and still is the proper vehicle
for judicial review of decisions of the NLRC. The use of the word The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
“appeal” in relation thereto and in the instances we have noted Isagani M. Jungco for petitioner.
could have been a lapsus plumae because appeals by certiorari Sebastinian Office of Legal Aid for private
and the original action for certiorari are both modes of judicial respondent.
review addressed to the appellate courts. The important
distinction between them, however, and with which the Court is REGALADO, J.:
particularly concerned here is that the special civil action of
The present petition for certiorari stemmed from a
certiorari is within the concurrent original jurisdiction of this
complaint for illegal dismissal filed by herein private
Court and the Court of Appeals; whereas to indulge in the
respondent before the National Labor Relations
assumption that appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court are
Commission (NLRC), Regional Arbitration Branch No. III,
allowed would not subserve, but would subvert, the intention of
in San Fernando, Pampanga. Private respondent alleges
Congress as expressed in the sponsorship speech on Senate Bill
that he started working as Operations Manager of
No. 1495.
petitioner St. Martin Funeral Home on February 6, 1995.
However, there was no contract of employment executed
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Hierarchy of
between him and petitioner nor was his name included in
Courts; All references in the amended Section 9 of B.P. No. 129 to
the semi-monthly payroll. On January 22, 1996, he was
supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are inter-
dismissed from his employment for allegedly
misappropriating P38,000.00 which was intended for
497
payment
498
VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 16, 1998 497


St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC ruling that there was no employer-employee relationship
4
between him and petitioner.
by petitioner of its value1 added tax (VAT) to the Bureau of On June 13, 1997, the NLRC rendered a resolution
Internal Revenue (BIR). setting aside the questioned decision and remanding the
Petitioner on the other hand claims that private case to the5 labor arbiter for immediate appropriate
respondent was not its employee but only the uncle of proceedings. Petitioner then filed a motion for
Amelita Malabed, the owner of petitioner St. Martin’s reconsideration which was denied by the NLRC 6 in its
Funeral Home. Sometime in 1995, private respondent, who resolution dated August 18, 1997 for lack of merit, hence
was formerly working as an overseas contract worker, the present petition alleging
7
that the NLRC committed
asked for financial assistance from the mother of Amelita. grave abuse of discretion.
Since then, as an indication of gratitude, private Before proceeding further into the merits of the case at
respondent voluntarily helped the mother of Amelita in bar, the Court feels that it is now exigent and opportune to
overseeing the business. reexamine the functional validity and systemic
In January 1996, the mother of Amelita passed away, so practicability of the mode of judicial review it has long
the latter took over the management of the business. She adopted and still follows with respect to decisions of the
then discovered that there were arrears in the payment of NLRC. The increasing number of labor disputes that find
taxes and other government fees, although the records their way to this Court and the legislative changes
purported to show that the same were already paid. introduced over the years into the provisions of
Amelita then made some changes in the business operation Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 442 (The Labor Code of the
and private respondent and his wife were no longer allowed Philippines and Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P. No.) 129 (The
to participate in the management thereof. As a Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) now stridently call
consequence, the latter filed a complaint charging that for and warrant a reassessment of that procedural aspect.
2
petitioner had illegally terminated his employment. We prefatorily delve into the legal history of the NLRC.
Based on the position papers of the parties, the labor It was first established in the Department of Labor by P.D.
arbiter rendered a decision in favor of petitioner on October No. 21 on October 14, 1972, and its decisions were
25, 1996 declaring that no employer-employee relationship expressly declared to be appealable to the Secretary of
existed between the parties and, therefore, his office had no Labor and, ultimately, to the President of the Philippines.
3
jurisdiction over the case. On May 1, 1974, P.D. No. 442 enacted the Labor Code of
Not satisfied with the said decision, private respondent the Philippines,
8
the same to take effect six months after its
appealed to the NLRC contending that the labor arbiter promulgation. Created and regulated therein is the
erred (1) in not giving credence to the evidence submitted present NLRC which was attached to the Department of
by him; (2) in holding that he worked as a “volunteer” and Labor and Employment
9
for program and policy
not as an employee of St. Martin Funeral Home from coordination only. Ini-
February 6, 1995 to January 23, 1996, or a period of about
one year; and (3) in ______________
4 Ibid., 16.
_______________
5 Ibid., 21.
1 Rollo, 17. 6 Ibid., 23-24.
2 Ibid., 18-19. 7 Ibid., 6.
3 Ibid., 19. 8 Article 2.
9 Article 213.
499
500
VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 16, 1998 499


tially, Article 302 (now, Article 223) thereof also granted an timely file a motion for reconsideration as a12 precondition
aggrieved party the remedy of appeal from the decision of for any further or subsequent remedy, and then
the NLRC to the Secretary of Labor, but P.D. No. 1391 seasonably avail 13
of the special civil action of certiorari
subsequently amended said provision and abolished such under Rule 65, for which said Rule has now fixed the
appeals. No appellate review has since then been provided reglementary period of sixty days from notice of the
for. decision. Curiously, although the 10-day period for finality
Thus, to repeat, under the present state of the law, there 10
of the decision of the NLRC may already have lapsed as
is no provision for appeals from the decision of the NLRC. contemplated in Section 223 of the Labor Code, it has been
The present Section 223, as last amended by Section 12 of held that this Court may still take cognizance of the
R.A. No. 6715, instead merely provides that the petition for certiorari on jurisdictional and due process
Commission shall decide all cases within twenty days from considerations 14 if filed within the reglementary period
receipt of the answer of the appellee, and that such decision under Rule 65.
shall be final and executory after ten calendar days from Turning now to the matter of judicial review of NLRC
receipt thereof by the parties. decisions, B.P. No. 129 originally provided as follows:
When the issue was raised in an early case on the
argument that this Court has no jurisdiction to review the SEC. 9. Jurisdiction.—The Intermediate Appellate Court shall
decisions of the NLRC, and formerly of the Secretary of exercise:
Labor, since there is no legal provision for appellate review
(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
thereof, the Court nevertheless rejected that thesis. It held
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto,
that there is an underlying power of the courts to scrutinize
and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of
the acts of such agencies on questions of law and
its appellate jurisdiction;
jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment
statute; that the purpose of judicial review is to keep the
of judgments of Regional Trial Courts; and
administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protect
the substantial rights of the parties; and that it is that part (3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments,
of the checks and balances which restricts the separation11of decisions, resolutions, orders, or awards of Regional Trial
powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust adjudications. Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities,
Pursuant to such ruling, and as sanctioned by boards, or commissions, except those falling within the
subsequent decisions of this Court, the remedy of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance
aggrieved party is to with the Constitution, the provisions of this Act, and of
subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and
subparagraph
_______________
(4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act
10 While Art. 223 bears the epigraph of “Appeal,” it actually refers only of 1948.
to decisions, awards, or orders of the labor arbiter which shall be final and
executory unless appealed to the NLRC by any or both parties within ten The Intermediate Appellate Court shall have the power to try
calendar days from receipt thereof. cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and
11 San Miguel Corporation vs. Secretary of Labor, et al., G.R. No. L- all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling
39195, May 15, 1975, 64 SCRA 56; Scott vs. Inciong, et al., G.R. No. L-
38868, December 29, 1975, 68 SCRA 473; Bordeos, et al. vs. NLRC, et al., _______________
G.R. Nos. 115314-23, September 26, 1996, 262 SCRA 424.
12 Zapata vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 77827, July 5, 1989, 175 SCRA 56.
501 13 See, for instance, Pure Foods Corporation vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 78591,
March 21, 1989, 171 SCRA 415.
14 Mantrade, etc. vs. Bacungan, et al., G.R. No. L-48437, Sep-tember 30, 1986,
VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 16, 1998 501
144 SCRA 511.
502

502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 15 75 O.G. 4781, August 29, 1983.
St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC 16 Executive Order No. 33 restored the name of the Court of Appeals, in
lieu of the Intermediate Appellate Court, effective July 28, 1986.
within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power
503
to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings.
These provisions shall not apply to decisions and interlocutory
orders issued under the Labor Code of15the Philippines and by the VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 16, 1998 503
Central Board of Assessment Appeals. St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC
Subsequently, and as it presently reads, this provision was
amended by R.A. No. 7902 effective March 18, 1995, to wit: ments of the original provisions of Section 9 of B.P. No. 129
were effected by R.A. No. 7902, viz.:
SEC. 9. Jurisdiction.—The Court of Appeals shall exercise:
1. The last paragraph which excluded its application
(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, to the Labor Code of the Philippines and the
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, Central Board of Assessment Appeals was deleted
and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of and replaced by a new paragraph granting the
its appellate jurisdiction; Court of Appeals limited powers to conduct trials
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment and hearings in cases within its jurisdiction.
of judgments of Regional Trial Courts; and 2. The reference to the Labor Code in that last
(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, paragraph was transposed to paragraph (3) of the
decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial section, such that the original exclusionary clause
Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, therein now provides “except those falling within
boards or commissions, including the Securities and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in
Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of
the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442,
Service Commission, except those falling within the as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and
with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section
under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.” (Italics supplied)
provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third 3. Contrarily, however, specifically added to and
paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph included among the quasi-judicial agencies over
of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. which the Court of Appeals shall have exclusive
appellate jurisdiction are the Securities and
The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and Exchange Commission, the Social Security
conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts Commission, the Employees Compensation
necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within Commission and the Civil Service Commission.
its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to
grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. Trials or This, then, brings us to a somewhat perplexing impassè,
hearings in the Court of Appeals must be continuous and must be both in point of purpose and terminology. As earlier
completed within, three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief explained, our mode of judicial review over decisions of the
Justice. NLRC has for some time now been understood to be by a
It will readily be observed that, aside from the change in petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
16
the name of the lower appellate court, the following This is, of course, a special original action limited to the
amend- resolution of jurisdictional issues, that is, lack or excess of
jurisdiction and, in almost all cases that have been brought
to us, grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
_______________
jurisdiction.

It will, however, be noted that paragraph (3), Section 9 _______________

of B.P. No. 129 now grants exclusive appellate jurisdiction
17 The different modes of appeal, that is, by writ of error (Rule 41),
to the Court of Appeals over all final adjudications of the
petition for review (Rules 42 and 43), and petition for review on certiorari
Regional Trial Courts and the quasi-judicial agencies
(Rule 45) obviously cannot be availed of because there is no provision for
generally or specifically referred to therein except, among
appellate review of NLRC decisions in P.D. No. 442, as amended.
others, “those fal-
505
504
VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 16, 1998 505

but prudently arrived at has been drawn from the

ling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
considerations extant in the records of Congress, more
in accordance with x x x the Labor Code of the Philippines
particularly on Senate Bill No. 1495 and the 18Conference
under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, x x x.”
Committee Report on S. No. 1495/H. No. 10452.
This would necessarily contradict what has been ruled and
In sponsoring Senate Bill No. 1495,19 Senator Raul S.
said all17along that appeal does not lie from decisions of the
Roco delivered his sponsorship speech from which we
NLRC. Yet, under such excepting clause literally
reproduce the following excerpts:
construed, the appeal from the NLRC cannot be brought to
the Court of Appeals, but to this Court by necessary The Judiciary Reorganization Act, Mr. President, Batas
implication. Pambansa Blg. 129, reorganized the Court of Appeals and at the
The same exceptive clause further confuses the situation same time expanded its jurisdiction and powers. Among others,
by declaring that the Court of Appeals has no appellate its appellate jurisdiction was expanded to cover not only final
jurisdiction over decisions falling within the appellate judgment of Regional Trial Courts, but also all final judgment(s),
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of quasi-judicial agencies,
Constitution, the provisions of B.P. No. 129, and those instrumentalities, boards and commissions, except those falling
specified cases in Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in
These cases can, of course, be properly excluded from the accordance with the Constitution, the provisions of BP Blg. 129
exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. and of subparagraph 1 of the third paragraph and subparagraph 4
However, because of the aforementioned amendment by of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
transposition, also supposedly excluded are cases falling Mr. President, the purpose of the law is to ease the workload of
within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the Supreme Court by the transfer of some of its burden of review
accordance with the Labor Code. This is illogical and of factual issues to the Court of Appeals. However, whatever
impracticable, and Congress could not have intended that benefits that can be derived from the expansion of the appellate
procedural gaffe, since there are no cases in the Labor Code jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals was cut short by the last
the decisions, resolutions, orders or awards wherein are paragraph of Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 which
within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or of excludes from its coverage the “decisions and interlocutory orders
any other court for that matter. issued under the Labor Code of the Philippines and by the Central
A review of the legislative records on the antecedents of Board of Assessment Appeals.”
R.A. No. 7902 persuades us that there may have been an Among the highest number of cases that are brought up to the
oversight in the course of the deliberations on the said Act Supreme Court are labor cases. Hence, Senate Bill No. 1495 seeks
or an imprecision in the terminology used therein. In fine, to eliminate the exceptions enumerated in Section 9 and,
Congress did intend to provide for judicial review of the additionally, extends the coverage of appellate review of the Court
adjudications of the NLRC in labor cases by the Supreme of Appeals in the decision(s) of the Securities and Exchange
Court, but there was an inaccuracy in the term used for the Commission, the Social Security Commission, and the Employees
intended mode of review. This conclusion which we have Compensation
reluctantly

_______________ _______________
18 An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, Amending for the 20 TSP, id., February 15, 1995, 18-19.
Purpose Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, known as the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980. 507
19 Transcript of Session Proceedings (TSP), S. No. 1495, February 8, 1995, 31-
36.
VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 16, 1998 507
506 St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Senator Roco. On page 2, line 5, after the line “Supreme
Court in accordance with the Constitution,” add the
phrase “THE LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
UNDER P.D. 442, AS AMENDED.” So that it becomes
Commission to reduce the number of cases elevated to the
clear, Mr. President, that issues arising from the Labor
Supreme Court. (Emphases and corrections ours)
Code will still be appealable to the Supreme Court.
xxx
The President. Is there any objection? (Silence) Hearing
Senate Bill No. 1495 authored by our distinguished Colleague
none, the amendment is approved.
from Laguna provides the ideal situation of drastically reducing
Senator Roco. On the same page, we move that lines 25 to
the workload of the Supreme Court without depriving the
30 be deleted. This was also discussed with our
litigants of the privilege of review by an appellate tribunal.
Colleagues in the House of Representatives and as we
In closing, allow me to quote the observations of former Chief
understand it, as approved in the House, this was also
Justice Teehankee in 1986 in the Annual Report of the Supreme
deleted, Mr. President.
Court:
The President. Is there any objection? (Silence) Hearing
x x x Amendatory legislation is suggested so as to relieve the Supreme none, the amendment is approved.
Court of the burden of reviewing these cases which present no important Senator Roco. There are no further Committee
issues involved beyond the particular fact and the parties involved, so amendments, Mr. President.
that the Supreme Court may wholly devote its time to cases of public Senator Romulo. Mr. President, I move that we close the
interest in the discharge of its mandated task as the guardian of the period of Committee amendments.
Constitution and the guarantor of the people’s basic rights and additional The President. Is there any objection? (Silence) Hearing
task expressly vested on it now “to determine whether or not there has none, the amendment is approved. (Italics supplied)
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the xxx
part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.”
Thereafter, since there were no individual amendments,
We used to have 500,000 cases pending all over the land, Mr. Senate Bill No. 1495 was passed on second reading and
President. It has been cut down to 300,000 cases some five years being a certified21 bill, its unanimous approval on third
ago. I understand we are now back to 400,000 cases. Unless we reading followed. The Conference Committee Report on
distribute the work of the appellate courts, we shall continue to Senate Bill No. 1495 and House Bill No. 10452, having
mount and add to the number of cases pending. theretofore been approved by the House of Representatives,
In view of the foregoing, Mr. President, and by virtue of all the the same 22was likewise approved by the Senate on February
reasons we have submitted, the Committee on Justice and 20, 1995, inclusive of the dubious formulation on appeals
Human Rights requests the support and collegial approval of our to the Supreme Court earlier discussed.
Chamber. The Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that
xxx ever since appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court
were eliminated, the legislative intendment was that the
Surprisingly, however, in a subsequent session, the special civil action of certiorari was and still is the proper
following Committee Amendment was introduced by20 the vehicle for
said sponsor and the following proceedings transpired:
_______________

21 TSP, id., id., 19-21; Record of the Senate, Vol. V, No. 63, pp. 180-181. 23 The Regional Trial Court also shares that concurrent jurisdiction but
22 TSP, id., February 20, 1995, pp. 42-43. that cannot be considered with regard to the NLRC since they are of the
same rank.
508 24 TSP, S. No. 1495, February 8, 1995, pp. 32-33.
509
VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 16, 1998 509
judicial review of decisions of the NLRC. The use of the St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC
word “appeal” in relation thereto and in the instances we
have noted could have been a lapsus plumae because add the further observations that there is a growing
appeals by certiorari and the original action for certiorari number of labor cases being elevated to this Court which,
are both modes of judicial review addressed to the not being a trier of fact, has at times been constrained to
appellate courts. The important distinction between them, remand the case to the NLRC for resolution of unclear or
however, and with which the Court is particularly ambiguous factual findings; that the Court of Appeals is
concerned here is that the special civil action of certiorari is procedurally equipped for that purpose, aside from the
within the concurrent original jurisdiction of this Court and increased number of its component divisions; and that
23
the Court of Appeals; whereas to indulge in the there is undeniably an imperative need for expeditious
assumption that appeals by certiorari to the Supreme action on labor cases as a major aspect of constitutional
Court are allowed would not subserve, but would subvert, protection to labor.
the intention of Congress as expressed in the sponsorship Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of
speech on Senate Bill No. 1495. B.P. No. 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the
Incidentally, it was noted by the sponsor therein that Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby declared to
some quarters were of the opinion that recourse from the mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65.
NLRC to the Court of Appeals as an initial step in the Consequently, all such petitions should henceforth be
process of judicial review would be circuitous and would initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of
prolong the proceedings. On the contrary, as he the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the appropriate
commendably and realistically emphasized, that procedure forum for the relief desired. Apropos to this directive that
would be advantageous to the aggrieved party on this resort to the higher courts should be made in accordance
reasoning: with their hierarchical order,25
this pronouncement in
Santiago vs. Vasquez, et al. should be taken into account:
On the other hand, Mr. President, to allow these cases to be
appealed to the Court of Appeals would give litigants the One final observation. We discern in the proceedings in this case a
advantage to have all the evidence on record be reexamined and propensity on the part of petitioner, and, for that matter, the
reweighed after which the findings of facts and conclusions of said same may be said of a number of litigants who initiate recourses
bodies are correspondingly affirmed, modified or reversed. before us, to disregard the hierarchy of courts in our judicial
Under such guarantee, the Supreme Court can then apply system by seeking relief directly from this Court despite the fact
strictly the axiom that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are that the same is available in the lower courts in the exercise of
final and may not be reversed on appeal to the Supreme Court. A their original or concurrent jurisdiction, or is even mandated by
perusal of the records will reveal appeals which are factual in law to be sought therein. This practice must be stopped, not only
nature and24 may, therefore, be dismissed outright by minute because of the imposition upon the precious time of this Court but
resolutions. also because of the inevitable and resultant delay, intended or
otherwise, in the adjudication of the case which often has to be
While we do not wish to intrude into the Congressional remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum
sphere on the matter of the wisdom of a law, on this score under the rules of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the
we issues since this Court is not a trier of facts. We, therefore,
reiterate the judicial policy that this Court will
_______________

_______________ statute or decree. No statute is needed to bring arbitrary

acts or decisions within our jurisdiction.
25 G.R. Nos. 99289-90, January 27, 1993, 217 SCRA 633. See also Tano, et al.
vs. Socrates, et al., G.R. No. 110249, August 21, 1997, 278 SCRA 155. 511
510
VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 511
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Villareal vs. Court of Appeals
(Tropical Homes, Inc. vs. National Housing Authority, 152
not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot SCRA 540 [1987])
be obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional and
——o0o——
compelling circumstances justify availment of a remedy within
and calling for the exercise of our primary jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, under the foregoing premises, the instant

petition for certiorari is hereby REMANDED, and all
pertinent records thereof ordered to be FORWARDED, to
the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition
consistent with the views and ruling herein set forth, © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.
Narvasa (C.J.), Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo,

Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Martinez, Quisumbing and Purisima, JJ., concur.
Petition remanded, records ordered forwarded to Court of

Appeals for appropriate action.
Notes.—It is generally understood that as to

administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or
legislative power there is an underlying power in the courts
to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law
and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by
statute. (San Miguel Corporation vs. Secretary of Labor, 64
SCRA 56 [1975])
The fact that P.D. 1344 does not specifically provide for
judicial review of NHA decisions affirmed or reversed by
the President, does not necessarily preclude judicial review.
The extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus or quo warranto (Rules 65 and 66) are always
available in proper cases where there is no appeal or other
plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law. The power of the Supreme Court to strike down acts
which infringe on constitutional protections or to nullify
administrative decisions contrary to constitutional
mandates cannot be reduced or circumscribed by any

St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new 11/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295

1/1/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new

Same; Same; Same; Jurisdiction; Statutes; The excepting

VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 16, 1998 495

496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 16, 1998 497

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001758178601372fc296c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/18 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001758178601372fc296c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/18

VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 16, 1998 499

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001758178601372fc296c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/18 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001758178601372fc296c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/18

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001758178601372fc296c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/18 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001758178601372fc296c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/18

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001758178601372fc296c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/18 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001758178601372fc296c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/18

It will, however, be noted that paragraph (3), Section 9 _______________

VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 16, 1998 505

but prudently arrived at has been drawn from the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001758178601372fc296c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/18 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001758178601372fc296c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/18

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001758178601372fc296c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/18 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001758178601372fc296c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/18

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001758178601372fc296c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/18 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001758178601372fc296c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/18

_______________ statute or decree. No statute is needed to bring arbitrary

WHEREFORE, under the foregoing premises, the instant

without pronouncement as to costs.

Narvasa (C.J.), Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo,

Petition remanded, records ordered forwarded to Court of

Notes.—It is generally understood that as to

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001758178601372fc296c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/18 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001758178601372fc296c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/18

You might also like