JAIME T. TORRES, PETITIONER, VS. FIRST DIVISION, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND LOTA ALAFRIZ, MARIVIC VALDEVISO, ANNABELLE FABRO AND LEYLITA LAWIG, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari seeking to
nullify:  (1) the public respondent
National Labor Relations Commission’s resolution dated October 30, 1987 which
affirmed with modification the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated June 13,
1986; (2) its resolution dated September 1, 1989 which, inter alia, approved the computation of the monetary
claims of private respondents; and (3) its resolution dated September 29, 1989
which denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

The antecedent facts are, as follows:

Private respondents Lota Alafriz, Marivic Valdeviso, Annabelle Fabro and Leylita Lawig are all teachers of
St. James Child Care Center in its branch at 86 Scout Alcaraz,
Sta. Mesa
Heights, Quezon City.  Marivic Valdeviso, who is a nursery teacher, started working with
the school on June 10, 1985,
with a salary of P800.00 a month. 
Annabelle Fabro and Leylita
Lawig started teaching in May and June, 1985,
respectively, each of them receiving a salary of P1,000.00
a month.  Lota Alafriz, who is also a nursery teacher, started working
sometime in July, 1982, with the latest salary of P1,700.00
a month.

Sometime in September 1985, the school issued a memorandum
requiring its teachers to submit their respective original transcripts of
records on or before October 5, 1985,
with a warning that failure to do so shall entitle the school to withhold their
respective salaries.  Most of the
teachers, including private respondents, were not able to comply with the
requirement of the school for different reasons.  Because of their failure to submit their
respective transcripts of records, the school withheld their salaries.  On the following working day, October 7, 1985, private respondents
were absent from their respective classes. 
When private respondents reported for work later (or after October 7, 1985), they were able to
receive their salaries but were not allowed anymore to resume their duties.

On November 28, 1985,
private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction,
underpayment and non-payment of wages and allowances against St. James Child
Care Center and petitioner Jaime T. Torres, the school’s proprietor, before the
Labor Arbiter.

On June 13, 1986,
the Labor Arbiter ruled in private respondents’ favor, the dispositive
portion of which, reads (p. 13, Rollo):

“WHEREFORE, all  the
foregoing considered, respondents are hereby ordered to reinstate the
complainants to their former positions and to pay their backwages
from the time they were dismissed up to their actual reinstatement.

“All other claims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

“SO ORDERED.”

In arriving at this decision, the Labor Arbiter rationalized (pp.
12-13, Rollo):

“The first issue (whether or not private respondents’
dismissal was for a valid cause) should be resolved in favor of the
complainants.  The trust (sic) of
respondents’ defense is that the complainants staged a one (1) day strike in
protest to the withholding of their salaries for failure to submit their
transcript of records.  Such claim has no
merit.  Complainants could not have
staged a strike because they were following up the release of their transcript
of records.  The complainants absented
themselves in order to secure transcript of records from their respective
schools so they could be paid of (sic) their salaries.  It is significant to note in this connection
that some of the complainants wanted to report for work before 12:00 o’clock on October 7, 1985, but they were not (sic) longer allowed
to enter the premises of the school.  It
is thus clear that the intention of the complainsnts
(sic) was to secure transcript of records in order to get their salaries and
not to declare (a) strike as concluded by respondents.  Such was the real situation in the case at
bar and it would be the height of justice (sic) to rule otherwise in the face
of the records before us.

“Moreover, the records show that the respondents were remiss
in serving written notice on the complainants and that no investigation having
(sic) been accorded to the complainants.

“The second issue (whether or not petitioner and the school
are guilty of illegal deduction) should be resolved against the
complainants.  There is simply no
evidence in the records of the case of any illegal deduction being made by
respondents on the salaries of the complainants.  On the contrary, all deductions appear to be
proper and authorized by the law like Medicare, Pag­-ibig
and SSS premiums.

“On the third issue (whether or not petitioner and the school
are guilty of underpayment of wages), it is sufficient to state that the wages
of all the complainants are in accordance with the applicable statory (sic) minimum wage.

“The claim, however, for non-payment of allowance is
meritorious.  The mandatory emergency
living allowance of the complainants (sic) is (sic) not granted.

“On the last issue (whether or not petitioner and the school
are liable for unpaid wages or commissions), it is
clear from the records and, in fact admitted by the complainants themselves,
that they have been paid of all benefits due them including their wages, with
the exception of allowance.”

Petitioner and St. James Child Care
Center appealed to the public respondent National Labor Relations
Commission.  On October 30, 1987, the NLRC resolved to affirm
with modification the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, the dispositive
portion of which, reads (p. 14, Rollo):

“WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED with
modification in that complainants’ backwages should
be, as it is hereby, limited to one (1) year without qualification and/or
deduction whatsoever.

“SO ORDERED.”

Petitioner and St. James Child Care
Center then filed an urgent ex-parte motion
for clarification of decision dated March
19, 1988 before the NLRC wherein it averred the following (p. 32, Rollo):

“x x x:

1.  A computation on the backwages
of Lota Alafriz, et al.,
was made on February 5, 1988
by the Sr. Labor Arbitration Analyst;

2.  The decision of the NLRC awards only One (1)
year backwages, but why is there an award/computation
for ECOLA?  There is no statement on
ECOLA in said Decision;

3.  Further, the computation of the one (1) year backwages is also defective in the sense that of the one
(1) year contract signed by and between the respondents and complainants for
the school year beginning June, 1985 to March, 1986, the complainants already
received their respective compensations up to the month of September,
1985.  If ever, what remained unpaid in
the period of the one (1) year contract were for the months of October to
December, 1985 and the months of January to March, 1986 or for a period of six
months.  To do otherwise, will amount to
double compensation which is contrary to law for no one shall enrich himself at
the expense of the other.”

On September 1, 1989, the NLRC, acting on
said motion and considering the computation dated February 5, 1988 made jointly
by the Acting Chief of the Research and Information Unit and the Sr. Labor
Arbitration Analyst of the total amount of private respondents’ monetary
claims, resolved (pp. 17-19, Rollo):

“1)  to approve as it hereby approves the computation
dated 5 February 1988 of complainants’ monetary claims herein to include, as
therein included complainants’ emergency cost of living allowance (ECOLA)
adjudged due them in the decision of 13 June 1986 and affirmed by the
Commission, but which was inadvertently overlooked in the dispositive
portion thereof, as well as complainants’ backwages
computed at an equivalent to one (1) whole year’s pay without any qualification
and deduction whatsoever, representing the earnings complainants were unduly
deprived of by reason of their illegal dismissal from the service;

“(2) to lift as it hereby
lifts the injunction issued on 15
November 1988 staying the execution of the aforementioned
decisions;

“(3) to order as it hereby
orders the immediate execution thereof; and

“(4) to order as it hereby
orders the immediate return of the entire record of this case to the Executive
Labor Arbiter of origin for purposes of execution of the aforecited
decisions in the instant case.”

On September 18, 1989, petitioner and St. James Child Care
Center filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned
resolution.  On September 29, 1989, the motion for
reconsideration was denied by the NLRC for lack of merit (p. 20, Rollo). Hence, the present
petition.

The petition raises the issue of whether or not the NLRC
committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that:  (1) the dismissal from employment of private
respondents was illegal; (2) private respondents were not paid their ECOLA; and
(3) private respondents are entitled to the award of one (1) year backwages.

Petitioner alleges that there is no illegal dismissal because the
termination of the employment contracts of private respondents was for a valid
cause.  Their employment contracts carry
the following provision (p. 6, Rollo):

”
’g. The teacher must avoid the commission of the following acts which
may be the causes for termination of this contract during the schoolyear:

1gxx

2gxx

xxx

5 g violation of the
school’s rules and regulations.’ “

One of these school rules and regulations
is (ibid):

” ‘1b.  The school office must be notified in writing
three (3) days before if the teacher
has to be absent for a valid reason.'”

Not one of the private respondents
notified the school regarding their plan to be absent on October 7, 1985. 
This circumstance constitutes gross violation of the aforementioned
school regulation.  Their absence was not
even satisfactorily explained.  Moreover,
they failed to submit their transcripts of records leaving petitioner no other
recourse but to terminate their services. 
The amounts that they received every pay day include ECOLA, as clearly
shown in the payroll sheets.  The period
covered by the award of backwages exceeds the period
covered by private respondents’ employment contracts.  While the contracts ended in March 31, 1986, the award, as
computed, was up to September, 1986.  At
any rate, the private respondents are not entitled to the award of backwages because the termination of their contracts was
justified.

The remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court insofar as an inquiry on the legality of private respondents’
dismissal and the propriety of the award of ECOLA to them is concerned, is no
longer available.  The present petition
seeking to annul, inter alia, the NLRC’s resolution dated October 30, 1987 was filed only on October 14, 1989.  We reiterate the trite statement that a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
should be filed within a reasonable period of time.

Even if We were to dispense with said requirement, pro hac vice, petitioner and the school are deemed to have
admitted the finding of the Labor Arbiter in its June 13, 1986 decision, as
affirmed by the NLRC in its October 30, 1987 resolution, that private
respondents were dismissed from employment illegally, in the urgent ex-parte motion for clarification of decision filed by
them before the NLRC (supra).  It
was their prayer in said motion that “a corresponding clarification on the
award computation be first made before a writ of execution is
issued” (p. 32, Rollo, underscoring
supplied).  It is plain enough that the
only concern of petitioner, and the school was the correct computation of the
monetary award to private respondents.

Likewise, petitioner and the school are deemed to have admitted
the finding of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC, that ECOLA was not
granted to private respondents. 
Petitioner and the school did not raise the propriety of the award of
ECOLA to private respondents as one of the issues in the appeal before the NLRC
(p. 16, Rollo).  When petitioner limited the issues on appeal,
necessarily the NLRC may review only those issues raised.  All other matters are final and, therefore,
can no longer be reviewed (Del Monte Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, et al., G.R.
No. 87371, August 6, 1990, 188 SCRA 370).

Petitioner’s other allegation with respect to the issue on the
period covered by private respondents’ employment contracts, aside from being
unsupported by documents, involves a question of fact which does not merit Our consideration.  We
mention for emphasis another trite statement that this Court is not a trier of facts.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.  The resolutions of the National Labor
Relations Commission dated October
30, 1987, September 1, 1989
and September 29, 1989 are
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Grino-Aquino, JJ., concur.