Civil Procedure Case Digests

CERTIORARI
St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC
G.R. No. G.R. No. 130866|J. Regalado|R45|16 Sep 1998

FACTS: Bienvenido Aricayos alleged that he started working as operations manager in St. Martin Funeral
Home on 6 Feb 1995. There was no contract of employment nor was his name included in the in the semi-
monthly payroll.
[1996] He was dismissed from employment for misappropriating ₱38K which was intended for payment
of VAT.
St. Martin claims that Aricayos is not an employee but only the uncle of Amelita Malabed, owner of St.
Martin. Aricayos was allegedly voluntarily helping, as an indication of gratitude, because Amelita’s mother
gave him financial assistance when he was still working overseas.
When Amelita’s mother passed away, Amelita took over the management of the business. She then
discovered that there were arrears in the payment of taxes and other government fees, although the records
purported to show that the same were already paid.
Aricayas filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
LA: No employer-employee relationship. No jurisdiction. NLRC: set aside the LA’s decision. Remanded.

ISSUE: W/N the CA may exercise judicial review over decisions rendered NLRC. YES.

HELD: [1972] The NLRC was first established in the Department of Labor by Pres. Decree No. 21. Decisions
of the NLRC were expressly appealable to the Secretary of Labor → President.
[1974] Pres. Decree No. 442 was enacted. LABOR CODE, art. 302 later 223.1 It granted the aggrieved
party of the remedy of appeal from the decision of the NLRC to the Secretary of Labor. Pres. Decree No.
1391, however abolished such appeals. No appellate review has since been provided for.
In San Miguel v. Secretary of Labor, the court ruled that there is an underlying power of 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; and that the purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its
jurisdiction and protect the substantial rights of the parties.
Remedy of the aggrieved party:
1. Timely file a motion for reconsideration (precondition for subsequent remedy)
2. Seasonably avail of the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65.
a. Even if the 10 day period for finality of the NLRC decision has lapsed the Supreme
Court may still take cognizance of the petition for certiorari if filed within the 60 day
reglementary period under Rule 65.
Batas. Blg. 129, sec. 9, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7902: Cases under the LABOR CODE are now part of
the exclusionary clause. This would mean that appeals from the NLRC cannot be brought before the CA,
but to the Supreme Court.
This is illogical and impracticable since there are no cases in the LABOR CODE wherein the decisions,
resolutions, order or awards are within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or of any other court
for that matter.
1. There was an inaccuracy in the term used for the intended mode of review. The purpose of Batas
Blg. 129 is to ease the workload of the Supreme Court by the transfer of some of its burden of review
of factual issues to the Court of Appeals. The court held, therefore, that ever since appeals from the
NLRC to the Supreme Court were eliminated, the legislative intendment was that the special civil
action of certiorari was and still is the proper vehicle for judicial review of the decisions of the NLRC.
2. Appeal on certiorari (RULES OF COURT, Rule 45): SC only.
Special civil action of Certiorari (RULES OF COURT, Rule 65): SC and CA, concurrently.

3. Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the SC
are interpreted and declared to mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. All such
petitions should henceforth be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the
hierarchy of courts.

1 Now, Labor Code, art. 229, as amended by Rep. Act No. 6715 (1989) and renumbered in 2015.

gmsg Page 1