ON July 27, 2012, petitioner Ramon Manuel T. Javines was dismissed from the service by respondent Xlibris A.K.A. Author Solutions, Inc. (Xlibris) for falsifying/tampering three meal receipts. Thus, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed his complaint, finding his dismissal was for just cause and with due process. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the LA’s decision by awarding Javines P10,000 for not having been afforded procedural due process.

Javines failed to move for reconsideration of the NLRC’s decision while Xlibris’ motion for partial reconsideration was denied. Only Xlibris elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) on certiorari on the sole issue that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in holding that it failed to comply with the requirements of procedural due process.

The CA partially granted the petition. It however reduced the award of nominal damages from P10,000 to P1,000. Only Javines moved for reconsideration of the CA decision, arguing that he was not dismissed for just cause. Xlibris opposed the motion on the ground that the issue as to whether or not Javines was dismissed for cause was never raised before the CA nor discussed in its decision.

Is there merit to Xlibris’ opposition?

Ruling: Yes.

The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC uniformly held that Javines’ employment was terminated for just cause under Article 297 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code. It is undisputed that from this unanimous finding, Javines failed to move for reconsideration nor challenged said ruling before the CA.

Consequently, the NLRC decision finding Javines to have been dismissed for just cause became final. For failure to file the requisite petition before the CA, the NLRC decision had attained finality and had been placed beyond the appellate court’s power of review.

Although appeal is an essential part of judicial process, the right thereto is not a natural right or a part of due process but is merely a statutory privilege.

Settled are the rules that a decision becomes final as against a party who does not appeal the same and an appellee who has not himself appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those granted in the decision of the court below. Hence, the finding that Javines was dismissed for just cause must be upheld.

Javines’ insistence that the petition for certiorari filed by Xlibris throws open the entire case for review such that the issue of whether or not he was dismissed for just cause ought to have been addressed by the CA is entirely misplaced.

While it is true that the appellate court is given broad discretionary power to waive the lack of proper assignment of errors and to consider errors not assigned, it has authority to do so in the following instances: (a) when the question affects jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) matters that are evidently plain or clerical errors within contemplation of law; (c) matters whose consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case, or in serving the interests of justice or avoiding dispensing piecemeal justice; (d) matters raised in the trial court and are of record having some bearing on the issue submitted that the parties failed to raise or that the lower court ignored; (e) matters closely related to an error assigned; and (f) matters upon which the determination of a question properly assigned is dependent.

None of the aforesaid instances exists in the instant case. Thus, the CA cannot be faulted for no longer discussing the issue of whether indeed there exists just cause for his dismissal.

Instead, in the petition for certiorari filed before the CA, Xlibris only questioned the award of nominal damages for failure to comply with procedural due process.

Emphatically, neither Xlibris nor Javines further questioned the CA’s award on this point. As such, the issue as to whether the requirements of procedural due process to constitute a valid dismissal were complied with has been resolved with finality. x x x (Tijam, J., SC 3rd Division, Ramon Manuel T. Javines vs. Xlibris A.K.A. Author Solutions, Inc., et.al., G.R. No. 214301, June 7, 2017).