Saturday, June 23, 2007 Jurisdiction among ca divisions By Dominador A. Almirante Labor Case Digest
IN a case for illegal dismissal and monetary benefits filed by petitioner Mario Villaflores against respondent RAM System Services Inc. (RSSI), the Court of Appeals (CA) Sixteenth Division in CA-G.R. SP 58836 reversed the rulings of the labor arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). It ordered the reinstatement of petitioner with full backwages.
In compliance with the order of the CA, the labor arbiter issued a writ of execution attaching therewith a computation of petitioner’s separation pay and backwages. RSSI objected to the computation specially as regards the monthly salary of petitioner.
After its appeal to the NLRC was denied, it filed a petition for certiorari with the CA which was raffled to its Ninth Division and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 84941. Was the action taken by RSSI well-taken?
Ruling: No.
Thus, the remedy of respondents to assail the resolution of the NLRC, approving the RCU’s computation, was to file the appropriate motion for clarification before the Sixteenth Division of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 58836.
In fine, respondents should not have filed a separate petition for certiorari in the CA which was later docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 84941 and raffled to its Ninth Division.
Worse, the Ninth Division of the CA set aside the assailed NLRC resolution, and in delving into the validity of the rulings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the verify of the computation of the RCU, arrogated unto itself the jurisdiction vested solely in the Sixteenth Division. (Mario Danilo B. Villaflores vs. RAM System Services, Inc. G.R. No. 166136, Aug. 18, 2006).
