You are on page 1of 5

A.L. ANG NETWORK INC., v.

EMMA MONDEJAR, Accompanied by her husband, Efren Mondejar


G.R. No. 200804 January 22, 2014 Justice Perlas-Bernabe

FACTS:

Petitioner filed a complaint for a sum of money, seeking to collect from respondent the amount of P23,111.71, which represented her
unpaid water bills for the period of June 1, 2002 to September 30, 2005.

From the period mentioned, respondent and her family consumed a total of 1,150 cu. m. of water, which upon application of the
agreed rate of P113.00 for every 10 cu.m. of water plus an additional charge of P11.60 for every additional cu. m. of water, amounted
to P28,580.09. However, the respondent only paid P5,468.38.

Respondent contended that since April 1998 up to February 2003, she religiously paid petitioner the agreed monthly rate of P75.00 for
her water consumption. RTC dismissed the petition for certiorari of the petitioner finding that the said petition was only filed to
circumvent the non-appealable nature of small claims cases.

ISSUE:
WON the RTC erred in dismissing petitioner’s recourse under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the propriety of the MTCC
Decision in the subject small claims.

RULING:
Yes. RTC erred in dismissing said petition. The Court has consistently rules that the extraordinary writ of certiorari is always
available where there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The Court finds that the petitioner correctly availed the remedy of certiorari to assail the propriety of the MTCC Decision in the
subject small claims case, contrary to the RTC’s ruling. Also, petitioner filed the said petition before the proper forum.

Hence, considering that small claims are exclusively within the jurisdiction of MTC, MTCC MeTC and MCTC, certiorari assailing its
dispositions should be filed before their corresponding RTC.

THENAMARIS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. CA and AMANDA C. MENDIGORIN


G.R. No. 1912195 February 3, 2014 Justice Del Castillo

FACTS:
The case stemmed from a complaint for death benefits, unpaid salaries, sickness allowance, refund of medical expenses, damages and
attorneys fees filed by private respondent against petitioner Thenamaris, filed with the Labor Arbiter. Private respondent is the widow
of seafarer Guillermo M. Mendigorin who was employed by Thenamaris for 27 years as an oiler and second engineer in the latter’s
vessels. Guillermo was diagnosed with and died of colon cancer during the term of employment contract between him and
Thenamaris.

The LA ruled in favor of the private respondent but the NLRC reverese the LA’s Decision. Private respondent then filed her Petition
for Certiorari before the CA.
CA noted that private respondent’s petition was filed 15 days late and suffers from procedural infirmities but the CA entertained and
directed respondent to cure the technical flaws in her petition. The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Prayer to
Dismiss, opposing to the extension of filing the petition for certiorari for being an absolutely prohibited pleading. CA denied
petitioner’s motion and gave private respondent one last opportunity to fully comply, hence, present Petition for Certiorari.

ISSUE:
WON the CA erred when it noted the petition for certiorari of the private respondent instead of dismissing it outright for having been
filed beyond the mandatory and jurisdictional 60-day period required under Rule 65.

RULING
The CA erred in noting the petition instead of dismissing it outright. The general rule is that a petition for certiorari must be filed
strictly within 60-days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration in accordance with the
amendment under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, where no provision for the filing of a motion for extension to file a petition for certiorari
exists.

CA should have dismissed the petition outright in view of the fact that the Resolution of NLRC denying respondent’s motion for
reconsideration had already become final and executory. Thus, it has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, except to order its
dismissal.

MICHELIN ASIA PACIFIC APPLICATION SUPPORT CENTER, INC. v. MARIO J. ORTIZ


G.R. No. 189861 November 19, 2014 Justice Perlas-Bernabe
FACTS:
Ortiz was employed by petitioner Michelin Asia as Personnel Manager. In line with Michelin’s “Tonus” initiative, a program for
improving working methods, a formal review of the Service Personnel processes was conducted and determined that the Personnel
Manager could be absorbed by the Service Center Manager and/or Assistant Personnel Manager.

Michelin sent Ortiz a letter terminating his employment on the ground of redundancy with notice to the DOLE Regional Office. Ortiz
accepted a separation package and executed a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim and signed for a Final Pay Computation.

Ortiz then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Michelin claiming that he was not aware of the redundancy and received a
lesser separation package. The LA dismissed the complaint and so the NLRC for not having been duly perfected, observing that his
Memorandum of Appeal was not accompanied by a certificate of non-forum shopping. Ortiz moved for reconsideration but was
denied by NLRC due to late filing. Ortiz filed a second motion for reconsideration but was denied. He then filed a petition for
certiorari before the CA but was dismissed for having been filed out of time and a relevant pleading was not attached to it. Ortiz filed
a Motion for Reconsideration to which Michelin was required to comment. CA then reversed its earlier decision and annulled NLRC’s
decisions.

ISSUE:
WON the CA properly granted Ortiz’ petition for certiorari and annulled the NLRC Resolution

RULING:
No. The CA should have dismissed Ortiz’ certtiorari petition. The NLRC correctly observes and ruled, justifying the dismissal of
appeal of Ortiz, that the latter failed to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping, the motion for reconsideration was filed beyond
10-day reglementary period, and that he filed a second motion for reconsideration which was a violation of and a prohibited pleading
under the NLRC Rules. As a prohibited pleading the filing of the second motion could not have tolled the running of the 60-day
reglementary period for the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of COurt before the CA.
Thus, the Court reverses the CA Decision and reinstates the NLRC Resolutions dismissing Ortiz’ appeal.