JOSE G. BUSMENTE, JR., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND APOLONIO CENTRON, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE, CENTRONET ENTERPRISES, RESPONDENTS.

Busmente versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Jose G. Busmente, Junior against the National Labor Relations Commission and Apolonio Centron, who does business under the name and style Centronet Enterprises. Busmente had filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment, overtime pay, legal holiday pay, and violation of several presidential decrees. The Commission affirmed the dismissal of that complaint and, separately, affirmed a ruling that Busmente had lost his employment status through abandonment. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean statement of the narrow gate of certiorari: a finding of fact by a labor tribunal, even one that is fairly debatable, is not grave abuse of discretion.

Procedural History

Busmente filed his complaint with the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission for the National Capital Region. Labor Arbiter Teodorico Ruiz dismissed it without prejudice when Busmente failed to file his position paper and affidavit and failed to appear, which the Arbiter read as lack of interest to prosecute. Busmente moved for reconsideration, and after the parties exchanged pleadings the Arbiter required position papers and resolved the motion together with the merits. On December 17, 1984 the Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding the monetary claims unsupported and finding that Busmente had abandoned his work. In a separate case commenced by Centron for damages arising from the abandonment, judgment was rendered on September 28, 1984 declaring that Busmente had lost his employment status on account of abandonment. Busmente appealed both decisions to the National Labor Relations Commission. The First Division dismissed the appeal from the first case in a judgment promulgated on October 25, 1985, holding the Arbiter's findings substantially supported by the evidence. It dismissed the appeal from the second case in a judgment promulgated on August 8, 1986, holding that due process had not been denied and that abandonment was proved. Busmente then filed the present petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, seeking to invalidate the judgment of August 8, 1986.

Facts

Busmente worked as a driver for Centronet Enterprises from 1979. In June 1984 he stopped reporting for work. Centron sent him a letter dated June 18, 1984 directing him to explain in writing within five days why he should not be dismissed for abandonment of work on June 14, 15, 16, and 18, 1984 and for absences without permission. Busmente refused to receive the letter, so Centron filed a copy with the National Capital Region of the Ministry of Labor and Employment the same day.

Although aware of the letter's contents, Busmente continued to absent himself despite oral and written demands, and never submitted any explanation. The evidence showed that he had been driving for his brother, who was engaged in a business similar to Centron's. His wife and stepchild, however, remained in Centron's employ. On June 20, 1984 Busmente filed his complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. Centron, in turn, sued him for damages caused by the abandonment.

The Labor Arbiters found that Busmente had abandoned his work and lost his employment status, and that his monetary claims failed because Centron substantiated with payrolls signed by Busmente that he had been paid the allowances and pays required by law, and that he had never complained of underpayment from 1979 until his abandonment on June 14, 1984. The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed both rulings.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission and the Labor Arbiters committed grave abuse of discretion in concluding that the evidence proved Busmente's abandonment of his work.
• Whether or not a question of fact may be reviewed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Applicable Provisions

The decision rests on the scope of the special civil action of certiorari, which the Court describes as limited essentially to jurisdictional error or grave abuse of discretion. The text of Rule 65 is not set out in the decision, so no verbatim quotation of it is offered here. What the Court does quote is its own governing formulation of the inquiry:

In certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, however, questions of fact are not generally permitted, the inquiry being limited essentially to whether or not the respondent tribunal had acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.

This formulation is the test against which the Commission's factual findings are measured, and it is why the Court refuses to weigh the evidence anew.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Arbiters and the Commission clearly had jurisdiction and did not go beyond it. The parties were heard conformably to the norms of due process, evidence was presented by both sides and duly considered, arguments were studied, analyzed, and assessed, and judgments were rendered setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court conceded that the conclusions might be fairly debatable and possibly erroneous, but held that they could not be characterized as outrageously wrong or manifestly mistaken, or whimsically or capriciously arrived at. They therefore cannot be declared to have been made with grave abuse of discretion.

On the second issue, the Court held that the basic question Busmente raised is in truth a question of fact, because resolving it would entail a review of the evidence. Questions of fact are not generally permitted in certiorari, the inquiry being limited to whether the tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Since neither jurisdictional defect nor grave abuse of discretion was shown, the factual findings stand.

Doctrine

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a vehicle for reviewing questions of fact. The inquiry is limited essentially to whether the respondent tribunal acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion is not established by showing that a finding is debatable or even possibly erroneous; it requires a conclusion so outrageously wrong, manifestly mistaken, or whimsically and capriciously arrived at that it amounts to a virtual refusal to perform a duty under the law. Where the labor tribunal had jurisdiction, observed due process, received and considered the evidence of both parties, and rendered judgments stating findings of fact and conclusions of law, its factual findings will not be disturbed.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs, and the challenged judgment of the National Labor Relations Commission was left standing.

Remember This

Memorize the line: questions of fact are not generally permitted in certiorari, the inquiry being limited essentially to jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. Examiners use this case to test whether a candidate knows that a debatable or even possibly erroneous factual finding by a labor tribunal is not grave abuse of discretion, and that certiorari cannot be used to reweigh evidence.