FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 187418, September 28, 2015
RAPID MANPOWER CONSULTANTS, INC., Petitioner, v. EDUARDO P. DE GUZMAN, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
PEREZ, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 seeks to annul the Resolutions dated 8 December 20082 and 20 March 20093 of the Court of Appeals, Former Fifth Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 106386 dismissing the case due to the failure of petitioner Rapid Manpower Consultants, Inc. (Rapid Manpower) to file with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a motion for reconsideration before resorting to a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
Respondent Eduardo P. de Guzman (De Guzman) was employed as an air conditioner and refrigerator technician by Omar Ahmed Bin Bichr in Saudi Arabia, through its agent, petitioner Rapid Manpower. The parties entered into a 2-year employment contract wherein De Guzman shall be paid a monthly salary of SR1,500.00. He was deployed from 18 May 2000-18 May 2002.4
On 18 September 2002, De Guzman filed a complaint for nonpayment of salaries/wages from October 2001 to June 2002, vacation pay, underpayment of salaries/wages (from SR1,500 to SR1,300), and travel expenses.5
On 16 November 2004, Labor Arbiter Clarito D. Demaala, Jr. rendered a Decision6 in favor of De Guzman, the dispositive portion of which provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents to pay complainant jointly and severally the amount of SR8,000.00 or its Philippine peso equivalent, representing complainant's underpayment of salaries plus the amount of SR9,000.00 or its Philippine peso equivalent representing complainant's unpaid wages from October 2001 to May 2002 plus 10% as attorney's fees.On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter on 18 August 2005.8 According to the NLRC, De Guzman failed to substantiate his claim for non-payment and underpayment of wages.9
Other monetary claims are dismissed for lack of merit.7ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Rapid Manpower submits that the Court of Appeals had at times given due course to a petition for certiorari even if no motion for reconsideration had been filed where substantial issues were raised and there was substantial compliance with the requirements for filing of the petition.17 Rapid Manpower explains that it honestly believed that NLRC would no longer have any reason to deviate from its latest findings considering that the findings are in the motion for reconsideration filed by De Guzman.18 Rapid Manpower then argues that there is no factual nor legal basis in awarding the claim for underpayment and/or unpaid salaries because the burden to prove underpayment and non-payment rests on the employee alleging it. Rapid Manpower claims that De Guzman failed to substantiate his claims. It avers that the award of attorney's fees likewise has no factual and legal justification. Finally, Rapid Manpower maintains that Besilda Felipe, being the general manager of Rapid Manpower, cannot be held personally accountable for any liability which may arise from De Guzman's employment overseas.19I.
IN DISMISSING ITS PETITION ON THE GROUND OF ITS SUPPOSED FAILURE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFORE PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC ON ITS RESOLUTION DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 2008II.
BY DISMISSING ITS PETITION, IN EFFECT UPHOLDING THE ERRONEOUS DECISIONS AND/OR RESOLUTIONS OF PUBLIC RESPONDENTS IN RULING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO HIS CLAIM OF UNPAID AND/OR UNDERPAYMENT OF SALARIESIII.
BY DISMISSING ITS PETITION, IN EFFECT UPHOLDING THE ERRONEOUS DECISIONS AND/OR RESOLUTIONS OF PUBLIC RESPONDENTS IN RULING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY'S FEESIV.
BY DISMISSING ITS PETITION, IN EFFECT UPHOLDING THE ERRONEOUS DECISIONS AND/OR RESOLUTIONS OF PUBLIC RESPONDENTS THAT BESILDA I. FELIPE BE HELD JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR THE MONETARY CLAIMS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT16ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The second exception applies in the instant case. The NLRC, in its 24 September 2008 Resolution was given the opportunity to reevaluate its findings and reconsider its ruling when De Guzman himself filed a motion for reconsideration assailing the 18 August 2005 NLRC resolution denying his monetary claims. The issues raised in the certiorari proceedings are similar to those passed upon and considered by the NLRC.
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 petition 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.21
Endnotes:
* Acting Member per Special Order No. 2188 dated 16 September 2015.
1Rollo, pp. 3-20.
2 Id. at 21-22; Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando with Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Ramon M. Bato, Jr. concurring.
3 Id. at 25-28.
4 Id. at 71.
5 Id.
6 Id. at 53-58.
7 Id. at 57-58.
8 Id. at 70-73.
9 Id. at 72-73.
10 Id. at 74-85.
11 Id. at 86-89.
12 Id. at 88.
13 Id. at 90-108.
14 Id. at 21-22.
15 Id. at 25-28.
16 Id. at 6.
17 Id. at 10.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 11-17.
20Republic v. Pantranco North Express, G.R. No. 178593, 15 February 2012, 666 SCRA 199, 205-206 citing Audi v. Mejia, 555 Phil. 348, 353 (2007); Sim v. NLRC, 560 Phil. 762, 768 (2007).
21 Id.
22 406 Phil. 310 (2001).
23 Id. at 317.