TOMAS CLAUDIO MEMORIAL COLLEGE, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEDRO NATIVIDAD, RESPONDENTS.

Tomas Claudio Memorial College versus Natividad

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Tomas Claudio Memorial College against Pedro Natividad, its former liaison officer to the Department of Education, Culture and Sports and to the Commission on Higher Education. The College dismissed Natividad after his arrest on drug charges, and Natividad sued for illegal dismissal. The case matters because the Supreme Court here separates two questions that are often blurred: whether there was a just cause to dismiss, and whether the employer observed due process. It also settles when a decision of the National Labor Relations Commission may still be attacked by certiorari in the Court of Appeals, and whether backwages may be withheld because the dismissed employee spent part of the period in jail.

Procedural History

Natividad filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the labor arbiter. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of legal basis. Natividad appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter and later denied his motion for reconsideration. Natividad then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of a valid cause for dismissal but held that the College had not followed the procedure for termination, and it ordered the College to pay backwages from June 13, 1996 up to the finality of the decision. The Court of Appeals denied the College's motion for reconsideration. The College then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, and the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

Facts

Pedro Natividad began working with Tomas Claudio Memorial College in Morong, Rizal, sometime in 1983. In time he was promoted as liaison officer of the school with the Department of Education, Culture and Sports and with the Commission on Higher Education, with the rank of Assistant Registrar.

On June 10, 1996, the Morong police arrested Natividad without a warrant for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. A criminal complaint was filed, and after preliminary investigation the Municipal Court of Morong found probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest. Three days later, on June 13, 1996, the president of the College sent Natividad a memorandum informing him that his services were terminated effective upon receipt, citing his frequent absences, rumored dealings with students, and his arrest as a drug pusher and drug user. He was also barred from entering the campus without the administration's approval. Natividad posted bail on July 5, 1996 and was released.

On October 2, 1996, the State Prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint for lack of merit, reasoning that the arrest and the subsequent search had no legal basis and that what was recovered was the fruit of the poisonous tree. On November 21, 1996, Natividad was arrested anew, and an information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was later filed with the Regional Trial Court of Morong. He posted bail and was released. On June 11, 1997, Natividad filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission for illegal dismissal, claiming that there was no factual basis for his dismissal and that he had been deprived of due process.

Issues

• Whether or not the private respondent was proscribed from filing a petition for certiorari to nullify the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission and its resolution denying his motion for reconsideration.
• Whether or not the petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals was filed on time.
• Whether or not the petition before the Supreme Court was filed beyond the fifteen-day period under Rule 45.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction when it modified the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission and ordered the payment of backwages.

Applicable Provisions

Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides:

Article 223. Appeal. — Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders.

The Court held that this provision governs appeals from the Labor Arbiter to the Commission only, and not appeals from the Commission to the Court of Appeals.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Article 223 of the Labor Code applies only to appeals from the awards or final orders of the Labor Arbiter to the National Labor Relations Commission, and not to appeals from the decisions of the Commission to the Court of Appeals. The private respondent was therefore not proscribed from filing a petition for certiorari within sixty days from notice of the denial of his motion for reconsideration. The Court explained that if the Court of Appeals grants the petition and nullifies the decision of the Commission on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction, that decision is, in contemplation of law, null and void from the beginning, and never became final and executory.

On the second issue, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the petition was timely filed, the docket and other legal fees having been paid at the same time, and that the petition was properly verified with the necessary annexes attached. The Court reviewed the petition and its annexes and confirmed that it was sufficient in form and substance.

On the third issue, the Court held that the remedy of an aggrieved party from a decision or final resolution of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 within fifteen days from notice, and that the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 is available only on the premise that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction and that there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court stressed that appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive, and that a party is barred from certiorari where appeal is available or is lost through his negligence.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the College failed to establish grave abuse of discretion. It rejected the argument that backwages should exclude the periods of detention. The Court explained that the payment of backwages is generally granted on the ground of equity, restores the income lost by reason of the unlawful dismissal, and is not conditioned on the employee's ability or inability to earn income in the interim. The State Prosecutor had found no probable cause for the first detention, and the private respondent had not yet been convicted by final judgment in the second criminal case, for he is presumed innocent until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Doctrine

First, the ten-day period in Article 223 of the Labor Code governs appeals from the Labor Arbiter to the National Labor Relations Commission, not appeals from the Commission to the Court of Appeals. Second, a decision of the Commission that is annulled by certiorari for grave abuse of discretion is void from the beginning and never becomes final and executory. Third, appeal under Rule 45 and certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive; certiorari lies only where there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction and no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Fourth, backwages are granted on equity to restore the income lost through unlawful dismissal, and are not conditioned on the employee's interim earnings or on his detention, so long as he has not been convicted by final judgment.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the dismissal for a valid cause but ordered the College to pay backwages from June 13, 1996 up to the finality of the judgment.

Remember This

Memorize this line: backwages are a matter of equity that restore lost income and are not conditioned on the employee's interim earnings, so detention without final conviction does not bar the award. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between the two remedies under Rule 45 and Rule 65, and the rule that a decision annulled for grave abuse of discretion is void from the beginning.