Case Digest (G.R. No. 158244)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 158244)
Facts:
Ernesto Ponce and Manuel C. Balignasay v. National Labor Relations Commission (Second Division), Innodata Philippines Corp., Innodata Processing Corp. (Innodata Corporation) and Todd Solomon, G.R. No. 158244, August 09, 2005, Supreme Court Second Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Ponce and Balignasay were employees of Innodata Philippines Corporation (hereafter Innodata), a data‑processing company whose 1998 Revised Absenteeism and Tardiness Policy (the 1998 Revised Policy), effective January 1, 1998, reduced allowable absences and increased penalties. The union and employees challenged the policy through grievance machinery and agreed on May 18, 1998 to submit the dispute to voluntary arbitration. Pending the voluntary arbitrator’s resolution, Innodata nevertheless terminated Ponce on August 3, 1998 and Balignasay on August 21, 1998 for absenteeism under the 1998 Revised Policy.
The voluntary arbitrator declared the 1998 Revised Policy null and void on August 21, 1998 for lack of consultation and diminution of vested employee rights. The Court of Appeals, and ultimately this Court, later upheld the policy as a valid exercise of management prerogative; this Court’s affirmance became final on June 27, 2001. Meanwhile, Ponce and Balignasay filed complaints for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter sided with petitioners on December 29, 1999 and ordered reinstatement with full back wages and attorney’s fees.
On September 28, 2001 the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Second Division, reversed the Labor Arbiter, dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but awarded petitioners financial assistance equivalent to one‑half month’s salary per year of service. Innodata filed a motion for reconsideration which the NLRC denied on November 20, 2001. Petitioners also filed a motion for reconsideration, received by the NLRC on October 17, 2001, but the NLRC’s November 20, 2001 resolution did not mention or dispose of petitioners’ motion, an apparent oversight.
Innodata timely filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing the portion of the NLRC decision awarding financial assistance. Petitioners, instead of moving to dismiss on prematurity grounds, participated in the CA proceedings and argued the merits of their illegal dismissal claim. On November 14, 2002 the Court of Appeals dismissed Innodata’s petition for lack of merit and affirmed the NLRC decision; its denial of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration followed on May 12, 2003. Petitioners sought review in this Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, challenging only the CA’s assumption of jurisdiction while their NLRC motion for reconsideration allegedly remained unresolved. After this Court was made aware, the NLRC later resolved petitioners’ motion in a resolution dated August 12, 2004.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to entertain Innodata’s petition for certiorari despite the alleged pendency of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before the NLRC?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)