DOCTRINE: A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original action.

DOCTRINE: A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original action.

It is independent of
the action that gave rise to the assailed ruling. In contrast, a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 is a mode of appeal. Thus, it is a continuation of the case subject of the appeal. It
follows then that it cannot go beyond the issues that were properly the subject of the original
action from which it arose.
SECOND DIVISION
JOVITA S. MANALO v. ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY, FR. JOEL TABORA AND

MR. EDWIN BERNAL
G.R. No. 185058, November 09, 2015
LEONEN, J.;
FACTS:
Labor Arbiter ruled that Manalo was constructively dismissed. However, Labor Arbiter
denied Manalo's prayer for moral and exemplary damages. Labor Arbiter’s Decision was
sustained by the National Labor Relations Commission. The Court of Appeals reversed and set
aside the ruling of Labor Arbiter and of the National Labor Relations Commission and dismissed
Manalo's Complaint. Aggrieved, Manalo filed the present Petition. She assails the supposed
impropriety of the Court of Appeals' ruling that set aside the findings of Labor Arbiter and of the
National Labor Relations Commission. She insists that their findings are conclusive and binding
on the Court of Appeals and that alternative findings could not have been the basis for reversing
their rulings.
ISSUE:
Did the Court of Appeals committed an error for entertaining alternative findings to those
made by Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission?
HELD:
NO
Judicial review of decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission is permitted.
However, this review is through a petition for certiorari (i.e., special civil action for certiorari)
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, rather than through an appeal. A special civil action for
certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that is allowed "only and restrictively in truly exceptional
cases. Consistent with this, the remedy of a writ of certiorari may be used only when there is no
appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Nevertheless,
this requirement has been relaxed in cases where what is at stake is public welfare and the
advancement of public policy. So too, parties who avail themselves of such a remedy are not at
liberty to assail an adverse ruling on grounds of their own choosing. Rather, a petition for
certiorari is "confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. Its sole office is "the
correction of errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction."
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original action. It is independent of the action
that gave rise to the assailed ruling. In contrast, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
is a mode of appeal. Thus, it is a continuation of the case subject of the appeal. It follows then
that it cannot go beyond the issues that were properly the subject of the original action from
which it arose.
It is a clear error for petitioner to insist that the figurative hands of the Court of Appeals
were tied just because the findings of the Labor Arbiter and of the National Labor Relations
coincided with each other. Precisely because it was confronted with a Rule 65 Petition, it was the
Court of Appeals' business to determine whether there had been grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Had it found that there was none, the proper course
of action would have been to dismiss respondents' Rule 65 Petition and to sustain the rulings of
Labor Arbiter Quiñones and of the National Labor Relations Commission. In the intervening
period, however, when the Court of Appeals was going about its task of arriving at a resolution,
petitioner should not fault the Court of Appeals both for examining the records and evidence at
its disposal and for embarking on its own analysis of whether Labor Arbiter Quiñones and the
National Labor Relations Commission properly performed their duties and were circumspect in
concluding that petitioner was constructively dismissed. A judicious resolution of the
controversy confronting it called for nothing less. Going about its task, the Court of Appeals
concluded that Labor Arbiter Quiñones' and the National Labor Relations Commission's
disposition of the case were attended with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

Uploaded by

DOCTRINE: A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original action.

JOVITA S. MANALO v. ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY, FR. JOEL TABORA AND

G.R. No. 185058, November 09, 2015

You might also like