Saturday, November 17, 2007 Motion for reconsideration in certiorari By Dominador A. Almirante Labor case digest
PETITIONER Romy’s Freight Service asserted that the petition for certiorari of private respondents Jesus Castro and Dominador Veloria should have been dismissed outright by the Court of Appeals (CA) for failure to file a motion for reconsideration wit the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) before filing the petition with the CA.
Did the claim find merit?
Ruling: No.
As a general rule, a motion for reconsideration is needed before a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 can be resorted to (Gabi Multi Purpose Cooperative, Inc. v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 155126, 09 November 2004, 441 SCRA 484). However, there are well recognized exceptions to thie rule.
Private respondents’ petition for certiorari before the CA was covered by the exceptions.
The issue raised in the certiorari proceeding before the appellate court, i.e., whether private respondents were constructively dismissed without just cause, was also the very same issue raised before the NLRC and resolved by it.
Moreover, the employer-employee relationship between petitioner and private respondents was impressed with public interest. Thus, it was proper for the appellate court to take cognizance of the case even if no motion for reconsideration had been filed by private respondents with the NLRC. (Romy’s Freight Service vs. Jesus C. Castro, et. al., G.R. No. 141637, June 8, 2006)
