Del Monte Land Transport Bus Company and Narciso O. Morales vs. Carlito T. Abergos

A motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition to the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in labor cases, and absent any justification falling under the recognized exceptions, the Court of Appeals must dismiss the petition outright; further, the NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence on appeal, as technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases.

Respondent Carlito T. Abergos was employed by Del Monte Land Transport Bus Company (DLTB Co.) as a bus driver starting September 12, 2011, earning a daily average income of ₱1,800.00. DLTB Co. is a common carrier that maintains a Code of Conduct requiring employees to exhibit the highest degree of discipline, with penalties for infractions ranging from warnings to suspension. Narciso O. Morales was joined as a co-petitioner in his capacity connected with DLTB Co. The dispute arose from Abergos's suspension and subsequent dismissal, which he characterized as constructive illegal dismissal.

Carlito T. Abergos was hired by Del Monte Land Transport Bus Company (DLTB Co.) as a bus driver on September 12, 2011, with a daily average income of ₱1,800.00. On August 28, 2016, at around 11:00 p.m., Abergos drove a DLTB Co. bus to Matnog Port, Sorsogon, en route to Southern Leyte. The bus was arranged to be ferried by a FastCat Ferry at 3:00 a.m., but DLTB Co.'s facilitator or fixer gathered all the passengers so they could ride the 9:00 a.m. trip instead. The passengers became angry and confused, asking Abergos why they were taking the later trip when they could already board the 3:00 a.m. trip. Because of the confusion, the passengers were forced to take the 3:00 a.m. trip of Star Ferry.

On August 31, 2016, after returning from the trip, Abergos was summoned to Mr. Sabino's office to explain why the passengers were not able to immediately board the Star Ferry. After submitting his written explanation, he was handed a memorandum suspending him for fifteen days effective September 1 to 15, 2016. When he reported back for work on September 16, 2016, Mr. Sabino told him he was already dismissed from employment. Abergos filed a complaint for constructive dismissal on October 18, 2016, praying for reinstatement, backwages, damages, and attorney's fees. Petitioners failed to file their position paper to contradict Abergos's allegations.

The Labor Arbiter declared the dismissal illegal and awarded backwages, separation pay, and 10% attorney's fees, finding strained relations between the parties. Abergos filed a partial appeal with the NLRC only on the issue of strained relations and the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. The NLRC initially modified the Labor Arbiter's ruling by deleting the separation pay and ordering reinstatement, finding no evidence of strained relations. Petitioners sought reconsideration and submitted documentary evidence of Abergos's numerous infractions, including reckless driving, arrogant behavior towards passengers and superiors, failure to stop for inspection, and prior suspensions. The NLRC granted the reconsideration and reinstated the Labor Arbiter's award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.

Abergos, without filing a motion for reconsideration, filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals. The CA granted the petition, finding that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting petitioners' belatedly submitted evidence and in ruling that strained relations existed. The CA reversed the NLRC Resolution and reinstated the earlier NLRC Decision ordering reinstatement. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. Abergos failed to file his comment despite being directed to do so, and the Court deemed the filing of such comment as waived.

• Failure to Move for Reconsideration: Petitioners argued that the CA erred in entertaining Abergos's petition for certiorari despite his failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC's Resolution dated May 24, 2017, which is an indispensable condition for the filing of a special civil action for certiorari.
• Separation Pay in Lieu of Reinstatement: Petitioners maintained that the NLRC correctly awarded separation pay based on a finding that Abergos's reinstatement would not be in the best interest of the parties, citing his reckless disregard for passenger safety and company property, and the numerous infractions he committed during his employment.
• Supervening Event: Petitioners contended that a supervening event existed that rendered the CA's directive of reinstatement impossible.

• Motion for Reconsideration as Indispensable Condition: Whether the CA erred in entertaining Abergos's petition for certiorari despite his failure to move for reconsideration of the NLRC's Resolution dated May 24, 2017.
• Separation Pay vs. Reinstatement: Whether the CA erred in reversing the NLRC's award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.
• Supervening Event: Whether there exists a supervening event that rendered the CA's directive of reinstatement impossible.

• Motion for Reconsideration as Indispensable Condition: Yes. The CA erred in entertaining the petition for certiorari because Abergos failed to file a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC and provided no justification for dispensing with this indispensable condition.
• Separation Pay vs. Reinstatement: Yes. The CA erred in reversing the NLRC's award of separation pay; the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in receiving evidence on appeal or in finding strained relations supported by substantial evidence.
• Supervening Event: N/A. The Court declined to discuss this issue, the alleged supervening event having occurred in 2019, two years after the NLRC Resolution had attained finality.

• Motion for Reconsideration as Indispensable Condition: A motion for reconsideration, when allowed, is an indispensable condition to the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as it gives the lower tribunal the opportunity to correct itself. Under the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, a motion for reconsideration of any decision, resolution, or order of the Commission may be filed within ten calendar days from receipt, provided it is based on palpable or patent errors. While exceptions exist—such as where the order is a patent nullity, where the issue is purely of law, or where a motion for reconsideration would be useless—Abergos failed to provide any reason in his petition for his failure to file a motion for reconsideration, and his case did not fall under any recognized exception. The CA itself did not discuss how the failure to move for reconsideration affected the propriety of the petition. Because certiorari is a prerogative writ never demandable as a matter of right, the petitioner must strictly comply with the rules, and Abergos's failure to do so was fatal to his petition. The CA should have dismissed the petition outright. In the context of labor cases, strict compliance bears more significance because NLRC decisions attain finality ten days from receipt, and execution is not stayed by the filing of a petition for certiorari unless a restraining order is issued. Abergos's failure to file a motion for reconsideration meant that certiorari was not the only plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available to him.

• Separation Pay vs. Reinstatement: Even if the Court were to excuse Abergos's procedural lapse, the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it received evidence on appeal. The NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence on appeal because technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases; the Labor Code mandates the NLRC to use every reasonable means to ascertain facts speedily and objectively without regard to technicalities. The evidence submitted by petitioners was timely filed when they moved for reconsideration of the NLRC's directive to reinstate Abergos. Moreover, the LA had already awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, to which petitioners did not appeal, effectively admitting liability for backwages, separation pay, and attorney's fees. When the NLRC modified the LA Decision to direct reinstatement, petitioners submitted evidence to show strained relations, and the NLRC's ruling on the existence of strained relations was supported by substantial evidence, as demonstrated by Abergos's numerous infractions including reckless driving, arrogant behavior, and prior suspensions.

• Supervening Event: The Court declined to discuss petitioners' argument on the existence of a supervening event because the alleged event occurred in 2019, two years after the NLRC Resolution had attained finality in due course.

• Motion for Reconsideration as Indispensable Condition to Certiorari — A motion for reconsideration, when allowed to be filed, is an indispensable condition to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, as it gives the lower court or tribunal the opportunity to correct itself. Exceptions exist, including: (a) where the order is a patent nullity; (b) where the questions raised have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court; (c) where there is urgent necessity for resolution; (d) where a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency; (f) where relief from an order of arrest is urgent in a criminal case; (g) where proceedings are a nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the proceeding was ex parte; and (i) where the issue is purely of law or public interest is involved. In this case, Abergos failed to show any concrete, compelling, and valid reason for dispensing with the requirement, and the CA should have dismissed the petition outright.

• NLRC Reception of Evidence on Appeal — The NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence on appeal, as technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases. The Labor Code mandates the NLRC to use every reasonable means to ascertain the facts speedily and objectively without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process. The Court applied this doctrine to uphold the NLRC's reception of petitioners' documentary evidence submitted on motion for reconsideration.

• Doctrine of Strained Relations — The doctrine of strained relations cannot be used recklessly or applied loosely to deprive an illegally dismissed employee of his means of livelihood and deny him reinstatement. It should not be given an overarching interpretation to include the resultant strained relations in most labor disputes, as this would make reinstatement an impossibility. However, in this case, the NLRC's finding of strained relations was supported by substantial evidence consisting of Abergos's numerous documented infractions.

• "A motion for reconsideration, when allowed to be filed, is an indispensable condition to the filing of a petition for certiorari." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the procedural issue: the mandatory nature of a motion for reconsideration before availing of certiorari, and the Court's primary ground for reversing the CA.

• "Indeed, it only bears stressing that the NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence on appeal as technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases." — This quotation, adopted from Nicol vs. Footjoy Industrial Corp., articulates the doctrine permitting the NLRC to receive evidence on appeal, which the Court applied to uphold the NLRC's receipt of petitioners' documentary evidence.

• "Abergos, who sought the extraordinary writ of certiorari, must apply for it in the manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and the Rules of Court. He failed to show any concrete, compelling and valid reason for dispensing with the motion for reconsideration." — This passage underscores the strict compliance required for prerogative writs and explains why Abergos's petition was fatally defective.

• Sim vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 157376, October 2, 2007, 534 SCRA 515 — Controlling precedent on the requirement that a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition to the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65; followed and applied to hold that the CA should have dismissed Abergos's petition outright.

• Cervantes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 166755, November 18, 2005, 475 SCRA 562 — Followed as analogous precedent where the CA correctly dismissed a petition for certiorari filed without a prior motion for reconsideration and without justification for dispensing with the requirement.

• Nicol vs. Footjoy Industrial Corp., G.R. No. 159372, July 27, 2007, 528 SCRA 300 — Cited for the doctrine that the NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence on appeal because technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases; applied to uphold the NLRC's reception of petitioners' evidence.

• St. Martin Funeral Home vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 494 — Cited for the principle that the only remedy available to a party aggrieved by an NLRC decision is a petition for certiorari before the CA, for which the petitioner must show it is the only plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

• Nacar vs. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439 — Cited for the guideline that interest on monetary awards shall earn interest at six percent (6%) per annum counted from finality of the NLRC Resolution until fully paid.

• Section 15, Rule VII, 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure — Provides that a motion for reconsideration of any decision, resolution, or order of the Commission may be filed within ten calendar days from receipt, based on palpable or patent errors, with only one motion per party entertained. Applied to establish that Abergos had an available remedy he failed to exhaust.

• Section 14, Rule VII, 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure — Provides that NLRC decisions, resolutions, or orders become final and executory after ten calendar days from receipt by counsel or parties, and that entry of judgment follows upon expiration of that period. Applied to show that the NLRC Resolution dated May 24, 2017 should have attained finality.

• Section 4, Rule XI, 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure — Provides that a petition for certiorari with the CA or Supreme Court shall not stay execution of the assailed decision unless a restraining order is issued. Applied to underscore the significance of strict compliance with procedural requirements in labor cases.

• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs the special civil action for certiorari, available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Applied to hold that Abergos's failure to file a motion for reconsideration meant certiorari was not his only available remedy.

Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson), Carandang, Zalameda, and Gaerlan, JJ., concurred.