Saturday, December 22, 2007 Motion for reconsideration in certiorari By Dominador A. Almirante Labor case digest
THE Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and set aside the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. Inc. assailed the decision of the CA for entertaining the petition for certiorari of respondent Homer Imperial despite his failure to file a motion for reconsideration from the NLRC decision before filing the petition. Is there merit to this assertion?
Ruling: No.
Petitioners now come before us assailing the decision of the NLRC, without filing any motion for reconsideration. While a motion for reconsideration under the Rules of Court is required before a petition for certiorari is filed, the rules admit of certain exceptions, among which is the finding that under the circumstances of the case, a motion for reconsideration would be useless.
In this case, the NLRC had reversed the decision of the labor arbiter and no new issues were raised in this appeal. We find it quite impossible for the NLRC to reverse itself under the foregoing facts and so, a motion for reconsideration will be deemed useless. Hence, by reason of justice and equity, we resolve to settle the issues on the merits in order to avoid further delay.
Likewise, we have ruled that with regard to procedural errors committed by a party to a case, fundamental consideration of substantial justice persuades us to decide the case on the merits rather than to dismiss it on a technicality. In so doing, we exercise our prerogative in labor cases that no undue sympathy is to be accorded to any claim of procedural misstep, the idea being that our power must be exercised according to justice and equity and substantial merits of the controversy. (Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. Inc. versus Homer Imperial, G.R. No. 149379, June 15, 2006, quoting Midas Touch Food Corp. versus NLRC G.R. No. 111639, July 29, 1996, 259 SCRA 652 and Antonio Surima versus National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 121147 June 26, 1998, 291 SCRA 260).
