ADAM GARCIA, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND LEGASPI OIL COMPANY, INC./ ROMEO MERCADO AND GUS ZULUAGA, RESPONDENTS.

Garcia versus Legaspi Oil Company

The Case

This is a labor case that reached the Supreme Court as a petition for review on certiorari. Adam Garcia, the petitioner, was the Production Maintenance Foreman of Legaspi Oil Company, Incorporated, and he was dismissed from employment on grounds of dishonesty and loss of trust and confidence. He complains against the National Labor Relations Commission and against Legaspi Oil, together with its Plant Manager Romeo Mercado and Gus Zuluaga. The case matters because it fixes the boundary between a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and an ordinary appeal, and because it tells us when the Court of Appeals may, and indeed must, look into the facts even in a certiorari proceeding, especially where the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission contradict those of the Labor Arbiter.

Procedural History

Garcia filed a complaint for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, and other labor standard violations before the Regional Arbitration Branch in Legaspi City. The Executive Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in his favor, finding that he was illegally dismissed and that he was denied due process, and ordered his reinstatement with backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission set aside that decision and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. It found that Garcia was dismissed for a valid cause, but it also ruled that the manner of dismissal fell short of due process, and on that account it said he should be awarded an indemnity equivalent to one month's salary. Garcia moved for reconsideration, and the motion was denied.

Garcia then filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, which was remanded to the Court of Appeals and docketed there as a special civil action. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on the ground that it raised only questions of fact, holding that a petition for certiorari is confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion and does not extend to a review of the correctness of the labor official's evaluation of the evidence. Garcia's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Garcia had worked as Production Maintenance Foreman of Legaspi Oil since April 1991. In December 1992, Romeo Mercado, the Plant Manager, instructed him to look for a road grader to clear and level the plant road network in preparation for the arrival of plant visitors. Garcia could not secure one at once. After a reminder, he went to the Albay Area Equipment Service of the Department of Public Works and Highways, where Engineer Antonio Abo advised him that no unit was available. Mercado pressed him to follow up, and eventually Regional Equipment Engineer Bienvenido Bogayong allowed the use of a newly rehabilitated road grader by way of operational test, on the condition that Legaspi Oil would shoulder the fuel, the repairs, the materials, the labor cost, and the wages of the operator and helper. Mercado agreed to these conditions.

A retired employee of the Department of Public Works and Highways, Jesus Torregoza, drove the grader to the company premises. The grader broke down on January 2, 1993, and Garcia instructed the company machinist to repair it and to fabricate a shear pin using a bolt taken from the company warehouse. It broke down again the following day and once more on January 12, 1993. Because Abo and his companion were not authorized to rent out government property for private use, they, together with Mercado, agreed to make it appear that Torregoza was the one who rented out the equipment. Billings were prepared and approved by Mercado, and Legaspi Oil issued a check for 37,373 pesos and 32 centavos in the name of Torregoza, who endorsed it to Garcia, and Garcia encashed it. A second check for 5,541 pesos and 45 centavos was likewise issued in Torregoza's name, endorsed, and encashed by Garcia.

On November 25, 1994, Torregoza filed a complaint-affidavit with Legaspi Oil, claiming that out of the first check only 2,000 pesos was given to him, and that the cashier refused to release the second check because of Garcia's instructions. Mercado issued a memorandum requiring Garcia to explain, citing company rules on offering or accepting anything of value for personal gain and on breach of trust and confidence, with dismissal as the penalty for a first offense. Garcia explained that he encashed the checks only upon Torregoza's request, that he gave the proceeds to Abo, less 1,300 pesos paid to a carinderia, and that he retained not a single centavo. He was placed under preventive suspension, later on forced leave with pay, and by memorandum dated February 10, 1995, his services were terminated for dishonesty and loss of trust and confidence.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing outright the petition for certiorari solely on the ground that it raised only a question of fact.
• Whether or not the errors attributed to the National Labor Relations Commission were mere errors of judgment rather than errors of jurisdiction correctible by certiorari.

Applicable Provisions

The decision governs the scope of the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which the Court describes in these terms:

In a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, errors of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction are ascribed to the lower courts or quasi-judicial tribunals.

This is the general rule that the Court of Appeals applied, and which the Supreme Court clarified but did not abandon.

The Court also relies on the statutory requirement of notice before dismissal, as discussed through the two-notice rule applied in Agabon versus National Labor Relations Commission, which the Court notes became final and executory on December 13, 2004. The decision refers to the failure of Legaspi Oil to comply with the two-notice statutory requirement prior to dismissing the petitioner, and to the indemnity that such failure entails.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition is meritorious. It agreed with the Court of Appeals that, as a general rule, certiorari does not lie to review errors of judgment of a trial court or a quasi-judicial tribunal, and that judicial review in certiorari does not go so far as to examine and assess the evidence and weigh its probative value. Such questions are proper only in an ordinary appeal or in a petition for review. The Court stressed that a certiorari proceeding is limited in scope and narrow in character.

But the Court held that the general rule admits of exceptions. Certiorari may properly be resorted to where the factual findings complained of are not supported by the evidence on record. The Court recalled its teaching that a wide breadth of discretion is granted in certiorari proceedings, and that the writ will be granted where necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice. It also held that in the review of a National Labor Relations Commission decision through a special civil action for certiorari, the Court is constrained to delve into factual matters where the findings of the Commission contradict those of the Labor Arbiter, and that the Court of Appeals, in its expanded jurisdiction over labor cases elevated through a petition for certiorari, may make anew a factual determination and on that basis reverse the ruling of the Commission.

On the second issue, the Court found a further reason for review. Even a cursory reading of the Commission's decision showed that its fallo was inconsistent with its body. The body mentioned that the petitioner should be awarded indemnity for the failure of Legaspi Oil to comply with the two-notice statutory requirement prior to dismissal, yet no such award was included in the fallo. The Court also saw a need for the Court of Appeals to delve into and resolve the matter of the use of government property by private individuals, and the effects thereof on the issues raised by the parties.

Doctrine

First, the general rule stands: certiorari under Rule 65 is confined to issues of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and does not extend to a review of the correctness of the evaluation of evidence by a labor tribunal. Errors of judgment are corrected by ordinary appeal or by petition for review, not by certiorari.

Second, the exception: certiorari may be resorted to where the factual findings complained of are not supported by the evidence on record, and the Court of Appeals may re-examine the facts where the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission contradict those of the Labor Arbiter. The writ issues where necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice.

Third, a decision whose fallo is inconsistent with its body, as where an indemnity discussed in the body is omitted from the dispositive portion, is a proper subject of review. And fourth, the failure to comply with the two-notice statutory requirement before dismissal gives rise to an award of indemnity, as settled in Agabon versus National Labor Relations Commission.

Disposition

The petition was granted. The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals were set aside, and the records were remanded to the Court of Appeals with a directive to reinstate the case in its docket and to conduct further proceedings with dispatch, without costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line: certiorari does not lie to review errors of judgment, but it will issue where the factual findings are not supported by the evidence, or where the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission contradict those of the Labor Arbiter. Examiners use this case to test the scope of Rule 65 in labor cases, the expanded jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over labor disputes, and the two-notice rule with its indemnity under Agabon.