Case Digest (G.R. No. 138270)
Facts:
Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138270, June 28, 2001, Supreme Court Second Division, Buena, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. invoked this Court's review of the Court of Appeals' Resolutions of February 24, 1999 and March 30, 1999 which dismissed petitioner's certiorari petition and motion for reconsideration.Adonis Saguilon was recruited and hired by Fil‑Pride Shipping Co., Inc. to work as a fitter aboard the M/V Anne Gro (later M/V Etoile), a vessel owned by a foreign principal. He joined the vessel on April 24, 1992, but was signed off and hospitalized shortly thereafter; he was repatriated to Manila on July 11, 1992, confined at S.M. Lazo Medical Center from July 13 to July 22, 1992, and died on August 21, 1992 of cardiopulmonary arrest, r/o liver cirrhosis.
His wife, private respondent Rosalinda E. Saquilon, demanded death and burial benefits and medical/sickness allowances from a number of manning agents and shipping interests including petitioner Sea Power, Western Shipping Agencies, Fil‑Pride, Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., and More Maritime Agencies, Inc. Failing payment, she filed a complaint on May 11, 1993 before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA); the case was referred to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) pursuant to R.A. No. 8042 (Migrant Workers Act).
Before the Labor Arbiter, respondents denied liability and advanced varying factual and legal defenses — among them that the deceased was already afflicted prior to employment and that certain agencies had ceased to be the manning agent or had transferred responsibility. On October 30, 1997, Labor Arbiter Pablo Espiritu, Jr. ordered the respondents to pay complainant medical and sickness allowance for 120 days (US$1,800 or its peso equivalent) and dismissed the death and burial and other monetary claims.
On appeal, the NLRC (Second Division) modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision by absolving Fil‑Pride from liability while rendering the Labor Arbiter’s decision final and executory as to the other respondents. Petitioner Sea Power filed a motion for reconsideration (the record reflects it was filed October 28, 1998 and denied September 14, 1998 in the rollo), and thereafter sought relief from the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
The Court of Appeals dismissed Sea Power’s Rule 65 petition outright in a Resolution dated February 24, 1999, citing multiple failures to comply with Rule 65 documentary requisites (lack of copies of the motion for reconsideration, original and amended complaints, an affidavit of assumption of responsibility, relevant POEA rules, and several pleadings) and Sea Power’s failure to post a bond for its prayer for injunctive relief in accordance with Rule 58, Sec. 4(b) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals’ dismissal was denied, prompting this petition to the Supreme Court.
In this petition before the Court, Sea Power argued that the procedural infirmities were technical and should be excused in favor of equity and substantial justice, and that it should be absolved from liability because its NLRC arguments mirrored those of Fil‑Pride which the NLRC had a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petition before the Supreme Court properly brought under Rule 65, or should petitioner have filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45?
- Was the Court of Appeals warranted in dismissing petitioner’s Rule 65 petition for failure to comply with documentary and procedural requisites and for failure to post a bond for injunctive relief?
- Could the Supreme Court, via certiorari under Rule 65, review the factual question whether petitioner filed an appeal with the NLRC and whether that ap...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)