Case Digest (G.R. No. 104302)
Facts:
Rebecca R. Veloso v. China Airlines, Ltd., K.Y. Chang and National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 104302, July 14, 1999, the Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Rebecca R. Veloso was supervisor of the ticketing section at the Manila branch of respondent China Airlines, Ltd. (CAL); she was assisted by senior ticketing agent Eleanor Go and ticketing agents Julie Chua and Josephine Lobendino. On October 29, 1986, respondent K.Y. Chang, then district manager of CAL, notified petitioner and her assistants that the ticketing section would be temporarily closed effective October 30, 1986; by November 5, 1986, CAL informed them the closure would be permanent and their lay-offs would be treated as retrenchment effective one month after receipt of the notice. A retrenchment notice was filed with the labor department on November 11, 1986.
Feeling aggrieved, petitioner was later advised to claim retirement pay but instead wrote to Chang protesting the termination and on July 1, 1987 filed with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement, backwages, damages and attorney’s fees. The Labor Arbiter, in a Decision dated June 8, 1990, found respondents guilty of unfair labor practice, declared petitioner’s dismissal illegal, ordered reinstatement with backwages and benefits and assessed moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees in a total award of P4,326,520.00.
Respondents appealed to the NLRC. In its resolution dated January 2, 1992, the NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter’s Decision, held the retrenchment valid and without basis for unfair labor practice, and awarded petitioner P428,895.04 as retrenchment pay. Petitioner received a copy of the NLRC resolution on January 7, 1992 but did not file a motion for reconsideration; instead she filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 6...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner’s filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 proper despite failing to file a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC within the reglementary period?
- If properly before the Court, did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the Labor Arbiter’s Decision and declaring...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)