CASE 2014-0052: DR. PHYLIS C. RIO, PETITIONER, – VERSUS- COLEGIO DE STA. ROSA- MAKATI AND/OR SR. MARILYN B. USTILO, RESPONDENTS (G.R. NO. 189629, 06 AUGUST 2014, PEREZ, J.) SUBJECT/S: ILLEGAL DISMISSAL; GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION; GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY. (BRIEF TITLE: RIO VS. COLEGIO DE STA. ROSA)
DISPOSITIVE:
“WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated 21 May 2009 and Resolution dated 18 September 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 89502 are AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.”
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
WHAT DOES THE CA DETERMINE IN A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI REGARDING A LABOR CASE?
WHETHER OR NOT THE NLRC ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN RENDERING ITS DECISION.
CA DOES NOT ASSESS AND WEIGH THE SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE LABOR ARBITER AND THE NLRC BASED THEIR CONCLUSION.
. . . . . The ruling in Mercado v. AMA Computer College-Parañaque City, Inc.9 citing Protacio v. Laya Mananghaya & Co.10 is apropos: As a general rule, in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the appellate court does not assess and weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon which the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC based their conclusion. The query in this proceeding is limited to the determination of whether or not the NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its decision. . . .
IS THERE AN EXCEPTION?
YES, IF THE NLRC DECISION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
. . . . . However, as an exception, the appellate court may examine and measure the factual findings of the NLRC if the same are not supported by substantial evidence. The Court has not hesitated to affirm the appellate court’s reversals of the decisions of labor tribunals if they are not supported by substantial evidence. . . . .
WHEN A CA DECISION ON A LABOR CASE IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE SC UNDER RULE 45, HOW WOULD THE SC DECIDE ON THE CASE?
RULE 45 LIMITS THE SC TO REVIEW ONLY QUESTIONS OF LAW. BUT IN RULING FOR LEGAL CORRECTNESS, SC DETERMINES THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. THAT IS: WHETHER THE CA CORRECTLY DETERMINED WHETHER THE NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN RULING ON THE CASE.
In Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation,11 We laid down the manner of review of the decisions of the CA in labor cases, as follows: In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. This is the approach that should be basic in a Rule 45 review of a CA ruling in a labor case. In question form, the question to ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case?
WHEN DOES AN ACT OF A COURT BE CONSIDERED AS WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION?
WHEN SUCH ACT IS DONE IN A “CAPRICIOUS OR WHIMSICAL EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT AS IS EQUIVALENT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION.”
Our discussion on the meaning of grave abuse of discretion in Yu v. Judge Reyes-Carpio12 citing Beluso v. Commission on Elections13 and J.L. Bernardo Construction v. CA14 is instructive:
The term “grave abuse of discretion” has a specific meaning. An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a “capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.” . . . . .
CHARACTERIZE SUCH ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
IT MUST BE SO PATENT AND GROSS AS TO AMOUNT TO AN “EVASION OF A POSITIVE DUTY OR TO A VIRTUAL REFUSAL TO PERFORM A DUTY ENJOINED BY LAW, OR TO ACT AT ALL IN CONTEMPLATION OF LAW, AS WHERE THE POWER IS EXERCISED IN AN ARBITRARY AND DESPOTIC MANNER BY REASON OF PASSION AND HOSTILITY.
The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an “evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.”
WHEN DO ONE RESORT TO THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI?
ONLY TO “TRULY EXTRAORDINARY CASES WHEREIN THE ACT OF THE LOWER COURT OR QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IS WHOLLY VOID.”
Furthermore, the use of a petition for certiorari is restricted only to “truly extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void.”
WHAT IS REQUIRED OF THE PETITIONER IN A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65?
PETITIONER MUST MANIFESTLY SHOW THAT SUCH ACT WAS PATENT AND GROSS.
From the foregoing definition, it is clear that the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 can only strike an act down for having been done with grave abuse of discretion if the petitioner could manifestly show that such act was patent and gross.
PETITIONER WAS DISMISSED FOR INEFFICIENCY AND INCOMPETENCE BECAUSE THE RECORDS SHOW THAT (1) THERE WERE DATES WHEN A MEDICAL EXAMINATION WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED AND YET THE DATES FELL ON WEEKENDS; (2) FAILURE TO CONDUCT MEDICAL EXAMINATION ON ALL STUDENTS FOR TWO (2) TO FIVE (5) CONSECUTIVE YEARS; (3) LACK OF MEDICAL RECORDS ON ALL STUDENTS; AND (4) STUDENTS HAVING MEDICAL RECORDS PRIOR TO THEIR ENROLLMENT. WAS THE DISMISSAL CORRECT?
YES, UNDER ART. 282 OF THE LABOR CODE.
Art. 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
- Serious misconduct or wilful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; 2. Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; 3. Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; 4. Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and 5. Other causes analogous to the foregoing. 16
WHAT IS MEANT BY GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY?
IT REFERS TO NEGLIGENCE CHARACTERIZED BY THE WANT OF EVEN SLIGHT CARE, ACTING OR OMITTING TO ACT IN A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS A DUTY TO ACT, NOT INADVERTENTLY BUT WILLFULLY AND INTENTIONALLY, WITH A CONSCIOUS INDIFFERENCE TO CONSEQUENCES INSOFAR AS OTHER PERSONS MAY BE AFFECTED.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GROSS INEFFICIENCY AND GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY?
THEY ARE CLOSELY RELATED BECAUSE BOTH INVOLVE SPECIFIC ACTS OF OMISSION RESULTING IN DAMAGE TO ANOTHER.
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 