f.

EXCEPTIONS
CORAZON C. SIM vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and
EQUITABLE PCI-BANK
G.R. No. 157376; October 2, 2007

PRINCIPLE:
Under Rule 65, the remedy of filing a special civil action for certiorari is available only
when there is no appeal; or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. A "plain" and "adequate remedy" is a motion for reconsideration of the
assailed order or resolution, the filing of which is an indispensable condition to the
filing of a special civil action for certiorari. This is to give the lower court the
opportunity to correct itself.
There are, of course, exceptions to the foregoing rule, to wit:
(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no
jurisdiction;
(b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly
raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and
passed upon in the lower court;
(c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any
further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the
petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable;
(d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be
useless;
(e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency
for relief;
(f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the
granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable;
(g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due
process;
(h) where the proceeding was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no
opportunity to object; and
(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved.

FACTS:
Corazon Sim (petitioner) filed a case for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter,
alleging that she was initially employed by Equitable PCI-Bank (respondent) in 1990
as Italian Remittance Marketing Consultant to the Frankfurt Representative Office.
Eventually, she was promoted to Manager position, until September 1999, when she
received a letter from Remegio David -- the Senior Officer, European Head of PCIBank,
and Managing Director of PCIB- Europe -- informing her that she was being dismissed
due to loss of trust and confidence based on alleged mismanagement and
misappropriation of funds.
Respondent denied any employer-employee relationship between them, and sought the
dismissal of the complaint.
On September 3, 2001, the Labor Arbiter rendered its Decision dismissing the case for
want of jurisdiction and/or lack of merit.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor
Arbiter's Decision and dismissed petitioner's appeal for lack of merit.
Without filing a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC, petitioner went to the Court
of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
In a Resolution dated October 29, 2002, the CA

dismissed the petition due to
petitioner's non-filing of a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was nonetheless denied by the CA
per Resolution dated February 26, 2003.
Hence, the present recourse under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioner alleges that:
I. The Court of Appeals departed from the accepted and usual concepts of
remedial law when it ruled that the petitioner should have first filed a Motion
for Reconsideration with the National Labor Relations Commission.
II. The National Labor Relations Commission decided a question of jurisdiction
heretofore not yet determined by the Court and decided the same in a manner
not in accord with law when it ruled that it had no jurisdiction over a labor
dispute between a Philippine corporation and its employee which it assigned to
work for a foreign land.


ISSUE:
Whether or not a prior motion for reconsideration is indispensable for the filing of a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the CA.

RULING:
Under Rule 65, the remedy of filing a special civil action for certiorari is available only
when there is no appeal; or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. A "plain" and "adequate remedy" is a motion for reconsideration of the
assailed order or resolution, the filing of which is an indispensable condition to the
filing of a special civil action for certiorari. This is to give the lower court the
opportunity to correct itself.
There are, of course, exceptions to the foregoing rule, to wit:
(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no
jurisdiction;
(b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly
raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and
passed upon in the lower court;
(c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any
further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the
petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable;
(d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be
useless;
(e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency
for relief;
(f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the
granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable;
(g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due
process;
(h) where the proceeding was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no
opportunity to object; and
(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved.
Petitioner, however, failed to qualify her case as among the few exceptions. In fact, the
Court notes that the petition filed before the CA failed to allege any reason why a
motion for reconsideration was dispensed with by petitioner. It was only in her motion
for reconsideration of the CA's resolution of dismissal and in the petition filed in this
case that petitioner justified her non-filing of a motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner argues that filing a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC would be
merely an exercise in futility and useless. But it is not for petitioner to determine
whether it is so. As stressed in Cervantes v. Court of Appeals:
It must be emphasized that a writ of certiorari is a prerogative writ, never
demandable as a matter of right, never issued except in the exercise of judicial
discretion. Hence, he who seeks a writ of certiorari must apply for it only in the
manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and the
Rules. Petitioner may not arrogate to himself the determination of
whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not. To dispense with
the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner must
show a concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing so, which
petitioner failed to do. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the
petition. (Emphasis supplied)
Consequently, the CA was not in error when it dismissed the petition. More so since
petitioner failed to show any error on the part of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC in
ruling that she was dismissed for cause.
The rule is that the Court is bound by the findings of facts of the Labor Arbiter or the
NLRC, unless it is shown that grave abuse of discretion or lack or excess of
jurisdiction has been committed by said quasi-judicial bodies. The Court will not
deviate from said doctrine without any clear showing that the findings of the Labor
Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC, are bereft of sufficient substantiation.
The Court notes, however, a palpable error in the Labor Arbiter's disposition of the
case, which was affirmed by the NLRC, with regard to the issue on jurisdiction. It was
wrong for the Labor Arbiter to rule that "labor relations system in the Philippines has
no extra-territorial jurisdiction."
Article 217 of the Labor Code provides for the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the
National Labor Relations Commission, viz.:
ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. (a) Except as
otherwise provided under this Code the Labor Arbiters shall have original and
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after
the submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in
the absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all workers,
whether agricultural or non-agricultural:
1. Unfair labor practice cases;
2. Termination disputes;
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that
workers may file involving wage, rates of pay, hours of work and other
terms and conditions of employment;
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages
arising from the employer-employee relations;
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including
questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts; and
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare
and maternity benefits, all other claims, arising from employer-employee
relations, including those of persons in domestic or household service,
involving an amount of exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00)
regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.
(b) The commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases
decided by Labor Arbiters.
Moreover, Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, provides:
SECTION 10. Money Claims. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the
contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within
ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out
of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract
involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual,
moral, exemplary and other forms of damages.
Also, Section 62 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 8042
provides that the Labor Arbiters of the NLRC shall have the original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide all claims arising out of employer-employee
relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas
deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages,
subject to the rules and procedures of the NLRC.
Under these provisions, it is clear that labor arbiters have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over claims arising from employer-employee relations, including
termination disputes involving all workers, among whom are overseas Filipino
workers. In Philippine National Bank v. Cabansag, the Court pronounced:
x x x Whether employed locally or overseas, all Filipino workers enjoy the
protective mantle of Philippine labor and social legislation, contract
stipulations to the contrary notwithstanding. This pronouncement is in
keeping with the basic public policy of the State to afford protection to labor,
promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex,
race or creed, and regulate the relations between workers and employers. For
the State assures the basic rights of all workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work [Article
3 of the Labor Code of the Philippines; See also Section 18, Article II and
Section 3, Article XIII, 1987 Constitution]. This ruling is likewise rendered
imperative by Article 17 of the Civil Code which states that laws "which have for
their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered
ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determination or
conventions agreed upon in a foreign country." (Emphasis supplied)
In any event, since the CA did not commit any error in dismissing the petition before it
for failure to file a prior motion for reconsideration with the NLRC, and considering
that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC's factual findings as regards the validity of
petitioner's dismissal are accorded great weight and respect and even finality when the
same are supported by substantial evidence, the Court finds no compelling reason to
relax the rule on the filing of a motion for reconsideration prior to the filing of a
petition for certiorari.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.