Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

VOL.

431,JUNE10,2004 633
Odangovs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission
*
G.R.No.147420.June10,2004.

CEZARODANGOinhisbehalfandinbehalfof32complainants,
petitioners,vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
andANTIQUEELECTRICCOOPERATIVE,INC.,respondents.

Remedial Law Certiorari Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court


requiresthatapetitionforcertiorarimuststatethegroundsreliedonforthe
relief sought.These four paragraphs comprise the petitioners entire
argument.Inthesefourparagraphspetitionersaskthatawritofcertioraribe
issued in their favor. We find that the Court of Appeals did not err in
dismissing the petition outright. Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court
requiresthatapetitionforcertiorarimuststatethegroundsreliedonforthe
reliefsought.Asimpleperusalofthepetitionreadilyshowsthatpetitioners
failedtomeetthisrequirement.
SameSameThesoleofficeofthewritofcertiorariisthecorrectionof
errorsofjurisdictionincludingthecommissionofgraveabuseofdiscretion
amountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictionItdoesnotincludecorrectionof
the NLRCs evaluation of the evidence or of its factual findings.The
appellatecourtsjurisdictiontoreviewadecisionoftheNLRCinapetition

_______________

*FIRSTDIVISION.

634

634 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Odangovs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission

for certiorari is confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of


discretion.Anextraordinaryremedy,apetitionforcertiorariisavailableonly
and restrictively in truly exceptional cases. The sole office of the writ of
certiorariisthecorrectionoferrorsofjurisdictionincludingthecommission
of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It
does not include correction of the NLRCs evaluation of the evidence or of
itsfactualfindings.Suchfindingsaregenerallyaccordednotonlyrespectbut
also finality. A party assailing such findings bears the burden of showing
that the tribunal acted capriciously and whimsically or in total disregard of
evidence material to the controversy, in order that the extraordinary writ of
certiorariwilllie.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorarioftheresolutionoftheCourtof
Appeals.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
MarianoR.Pefiancoforpetitioners.
AlexG.Sirveloforprivaterespondent.

CARPIO,J.:

TheCase
1
Before the Court is a petition for review 2 assailing the Court of
AppealsResolutionsof27September2000 and7February2001in3
CAG.R.SPNo.51519.TheCourtofAppealsupheldtheDecision
dated27November1997andtheResolutiondated30April1998of
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC
Case No. V004897. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiters
Decision of 29 November 1996, which found respondent Antique
Electric Cooperative (ANTECO) liable for petitioners wage
differentials amounting to P1,017,507.73 plus attorneys fees of
10%.

AntecedentFacts

Petitioners are monthlypaid employees of ANTECO whose


workdaysarefromMondaytoFridayandhalfofSaturday.Aftera

_______________

1UnderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.

2PennedbyAssociateJusticeMarianoM.UmaliwithAssociateJusticesRubenT.

ReyesandRebeccaDeGuiaSalvador,concurring.
3 Penned by Commissioner Bernabe S. Batuhan with Commissioners Irenea R.

CernizaandAmoritoV.Caete,concurring.

635

VOL.431,JUNE10,2004 635
Odangovs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission

routineinspection,theRegionalBranchoftheDepartmentofLabor
and Employment (DOLE) found ANTECO liable for
underpayment of the monthly salaries of its employees. On 10
September1989,theDOLEdirectedANTECOtopayitsemployees
wagedifferentialsamountingtoP1,427,412.75.ANTECOfailedto
pay.
Thus, on various dates in 1995, thirtythree (33) monthlypaid
employees filed complaints with the NLRC SubRegional Branch
VI,IloiloCity,prayingforpaymentofwagedifferentials,damages
and attorneys fees. Labor Arbiter Rodolfo G. Lagoc (Labor
Arbiter)heardtheconsolidatedcomplaints.
On29November1996,theLaborArbiterrenderedaDecisionin
favor of petitioners granting them wage differentials amounting to
P1,017,507.73 and attorneys fees of 10%. Florentino Tongson,
whosecasetheLaborArbiterdismissed,wasthesoleexception.
ANTECOappealedtheDecisiontotheNLRCon24December
1996. On 27 November 1997, the NLRC reversed the Labor
Arbiters Decision. The NLRC denied petitioners motion for
reconsideration in its Resolution dated 30 April 1998. Petitioners
thenelevatedthecasetothisCourtthroughapetitionforcertiorari,
which the Court dismissed for petitioners failure to comply with
Section11,Rule13oftheRulesofCourt.Onpetitionersmotionfor
reconsideration, the Court on 13 January 1999 set aside the
dismissal.
4
Following the doctrine in St. Martin Funeral Home v.
NLRC, theCourtreferredthecasetotheCourtofAppeals.
On27September2000,theCourtofAppealsissuedaResolution
dismissingthepetitionforfailuretocomplywithSection3,Rule46
of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals explained that
petitioners failed to allege the specific instances where the NLRC
abuseditsdiscretion.Theappellatecourtdeniedpetitionersmotion
forreconsiderationon7February2001.
Hence,thispetition

TheLaborArbitersRuling

The Labor Arbiter reasoned that ANTECO failed to refute


petitioners argument that monthlypaid employees are considered
paidforallthedaysinamonthunderSection2,RuleIVofBook3

_______________

4356Phil.811295SCRA494(1998).

636

636 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Odangovs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission
5
of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code (Section 2).
Petitioners claim that this includes not only the 10 legal holidays,
butalsotheirunworkedhalfofSaturdaysandallofSundays.
TheLaborArbitergavecredencetopetitionersargumentsonthe
computation of their wages based on the 304 divisor used by
ANTECO in converting the leave credits of its employees. The
LaborArbiteragreedwithpetitionersthatANTECOsuseof304as
divisorisanadmissionthatitispayingitsemployeesforonly304
days a year instead of the 365 days as specified in Section 2. The
Labor Arbiter concluded that ANTECO owed its employees the
wages for 61 days, the difference between 365 and 304, for every
year.

TheNLRCsRuling

On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiters ruling that


ANTECOunderpaiditsemployees.TheNLRCpointedoutthatthe
LaborArbitersowncomputationshowedthatthedailywagerates
of ANTECOs employees were above the minimum daily wage of
P124.ThelowestpaidemployeeofANTECOwasthenreceivinga
monthlywageofP3,788.TheNLRCappliedtheformulainSection
2 [(Daily Wage Rate = (Wage x 12)/365)] to the monthly wage of
P3,788toarriveatadailywagerateofP124.54,anamountclearly
abovetheminimumwage.
The NLRC noted that while the reasoning in the body of the
LaborArbitersdecisionsupportedtheviewthatANTECOdidnot
underpay, the conclusion arrived at was the opposite. Finally, the
NLRC ruled that the use of 304 as a divisor in converting leave
credits is more favorable to the employees since a lower divisor
yieldsahigherrateofpay.

_______________

5SEC.2.Statusofemployeespaidbythemonth.Employeeswhoareuniformly

paidbythemonth,irrespectiveofthenumberofworkingdaystherein,withasalaryof
notlessthanthestatutoryorestablishedminimumwageshallbepresumedtobepaid
foralldaysinthemonthwhetherworkedornot.
Forthispurpose,themonthlyminimumwageshallnotbelessthanthestatutory
minimumwagemultipliedby365daysdividedbytwelve.

637

VOL.431,JUNE10,2004 637
Odangovs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission

TheRulingoftheCourtofAppeals

TheCourtofAppealsheldthatthepetitionwasinsufficientinform
andsubstancesinceitdoesnotallegetheessentialrequirementsof
theextraordinaryspecialactionofcertiorari.TheCourtofAppeals
faulted petitioners for failing to recite where and in what specific
instance public respondent abused its discretion. The appellate
courtcharacterizedtheallegationsinthepetitionassweepingand
clearlyfallingshortoftherequirementofSection3,Rule46ofthe
RulesofCourt.
TheIssues

Petitionersraisethefollowingissues:

WHETHERTHECOURTOFAPPEALSISCORRECTINDISMISSING
THECASE.

II

WHETHER
6
PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR MONEY
CLAIM.

TheRulingoftheCourt

Thepetitionhasnomerit.

Onthesufficiencyofthepetition
PetitionersarguethattheCourtofAppealserredindismissingtheir
petition because this Court had already ruled that their petition is
sufficientinformandsubstance.Theyarguethatthisprecludesany
judgment to the contrary by the Court of Appeals. Petitioners cite
this Courts Resolution dated 13 January 1999 as their basis. This
Resolution granted petitioners motion for reconsideration and set
asidethedismissaloftheirpetitionforreview.
Petitioners reliance on our 16 September 1998 Resolution is
misplaced.InourResolution,wedismissedpetitionerscasefor

_______________

6Rollo,p.9.

638

638 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Odangovs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission
7
failure to comply with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.
Thepetitionlackedawrittenexplanationonwhyservicewasmade
throughregisteredmailandnotpersonally.
The error petitioners committed before the Court of Appeals is
different. The appellate court dismissed their petition for8
failure to
complywiththefirstparagraphofSection3ofRule46 inrelation
toRule65oftheRulesofCourt,outliningthenecessarycontentsof
a petition for certiorari. This is an entirely different ground. The
previous dismissal was due to petitioners failure to explain why
theyresortedtoservicebyregisteredmail.Thistimethecontentof
the petition itself is deficient. Petitioners failed to allege in their
petition the specific instances where the actions of the NLRC
amountedtograveabuseofdiscretion.
There is nothing in this Courts Resolution dated 13 January
1999thatremotelysupportspetitionersargument.Whatweresolved
then was to reconsider the dismissal of the petition due to a
proceduraldefectandtoreferthecasetotheCourtofAppealsforits
proper disposition. We did not in any way rule that the petition is
sufficientinformandsubstance.
Petitionersalsoarguethattheirpetitionisclearandspecificinits
allegationofgraveabuseofdiscretion.Theymaintainthattheyhave
sufficientlycompliedwiththerequirementinSection3,Rule46of
theRulesofCourt.
Again,petitionersaremistaken.
Wequotetherelevantpartoftheirpetition:

_______________

7 Sec. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing.Whenever practicable, the

serviceandfilingofpleadingsandotherpapersshallbedonepersonally.Exceptwith
respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be
accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done
personally.AviolationofthisRulemaybecausetoconsiderthepaperasnotfiled.
8 Sec. 3. Content and filing of petition effect of noncompliance with
requirements.Thepetitionshallcontainthefullnamesandactualaddressesofall
the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of the matters involved, the
factualbackgroundofthecase,andthegroundsrelieduponforthereliefprayedfor.
xxx

639

VOL.431,JUNE10,2004 639
Odangovs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission

REASONSRELIEDUPONFORALLOWANCEOFPETITION

12. This Honorable court can readily see from the facts and
circumstances of this case, the petitioners were denied of their
rights to be paid of 4 hours of each Saturday, 51 rest days and 10
legal holidays of every year since they started working with
respondentANTECO.
13. The respondent NLRC while with open eyes knew that the
petitioners are entitled to salary differentials consisting of 4 hours
pay on Saturdays, 51 rest days and 10 legal holidays plus 10%
attorneys fees as awarded by the Labor Arbiter in the above
mentioned decision, still contrary to law, contrary to existing
jurisprudenceissuedarbitrary,withoutjurisdictionandinexcessof
jurisdictionthedecisionvacatingandsettingasidethesaiddecision
oftheLaborArbiter,totheirreparabledamageandprejudiceofthe
petitioners.
14. That the respondent NLRC in grave abuse of discretion in the
exercise of its function, by way of evasion of positive duty in
accordance with existing labor laws, illegally refused to reconsider
itsdecisiondismissingthepetitionerscomplaints.
15. That there is no appeal, nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
law from the abovementioned decision and9 resolution of
respondentNLRCexceptthispetitionforcertiorari.

Thesefourparagraphscomprisethepetitionersentireargument.In
these four paragraphs petitioners ask that a writ of certiorari be
issuedintheirfavor.WefindthattheCourtofAppealsdidnoterrin
dismissingthepetitionoutright.Section3,Rule46oftheRulesof
Court requires that a petition for certiorari must state the grounds
relied on for the relief sought. A simple perusal of the petition
readilyshowsthatpetitionersfailedtomeetthisrequirement.
The appellate courts jurisdiction to review a decision of the
NLRCinapetitionforcertiorariisconfinedtoissuesofjurisdiction
10
or grave abuse of discretion. An extraordinary remedy, a petition
for certiorari is available only and restrictively in truly exceptional
cases. The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of
errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave11
abuse of
discretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction. Itdoesnot

_______________

9CARollo,p.6.

10 Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 412 Phil. 603 360

SCRA173(2001).
11Orov.JudgeDiaz,413Phil.416361SCRA108(2001).

640

640 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Odangovs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission

include correction of the NLRCs evaluation of the evidence or of


its factual findings. Such12
findings are generally accorded not only
respect but also finality. A party assailing such findings bears the
burden of showing that the tribunal acted capriciously and
whimsically or in total disregard of evidence material to the
controversy,
13
in order that the extraordinary writ of certiorari will
lie.
WeagreewiththeCourtofAppealsthatnowhereinthepetition
is there any acceptable demonstration that the NLRC acted either
with grave abuse of discretion or without or in excess of its
jurisdiction. Petitioners merely stated generalizations and
conclusions of law. Rather than discussing how the NLRC acted
capriciously,petitionersresortedtoalitanyofgeneralizations.
Petitions that fail to comply with procedural requisites, or are
unintelligible or clearly without legal basis, deserve scant
consideration.Section6,Rule65oftheRulesofCourtrequiresthat
everypetitionbesufficientinformandsubstancebeforeacourtmay
takefurtheraction.Lackingsuchsufficiency,thecourtmaydismiss
thepetitionoutright.
The insufficiency in substance of this petition provides enough
reason to end our discussion here. However, we shall discuss the
issues raised not so much to address the merit of the petition, for
there is none, but to illustrate the extent by which petitioners have
haphazardlypursuedtheirclaim.

Ontherightofthepetitionerstowagedifferentials
PetitionersclaimthattheCourtofAppealsgravelyerredindenying
their claim for wage differentials. Petitioners base their claim on
Section2,RuleIVofBookIIIoftheOmnibusRulesImplementing
theLaborCode.Petitionersarguethatunderthisprovisionmonthly
paid employees are considered paid for all days of the month
includingunworkeddays.Petitionersassertthattheyshouldbepaid
for all the 365 days in a year. They argue that since in the
computation of leave credits, ANTECO uses a divisor of 304,
ANTECOisnotpayingthem61dayseveryyear.

_______________

12Floresvs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,323Phil.589253SCRA494

(1996).
13Sajonas vs. National Labor Relations Commission,G.R. No. 49286, March 15,

1990,183SCRA182.

641

VOL.431,JUNE10,2004 641
Odangovs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission

Petitionersclaimiswithoutbasis
WehavelongagodeclaredvoidSection2,RuleIVofBookIIIof
theOmnibusRulesImplementingtheLaborCode.InInsularBank
14
ofAsiav.Inciong, weruledasfollows:

Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Implementing Rules and Policy
InstructionsNo.9issuedbytheSecretary(thenMinister)ofLaborarenull
and void since in the guise of clarifying the Labor Codes provisions on
holiday pay, they in effect amended them by enlarging the scope of their
exclusion.
The Labor Code is clear that monthlypaid employees are not excluded
from the benefits of holiday pay. However, the implementing rules on
holiday pay promulgated by the then Secretary of Labor excludes monthly
paidemployeesfromthesaidbenefitsbyinserting,underRuleIV,BookIII
of the implementing rules, Section 2 which provides that monthlypaid
employeesarepresumedtobepaidforalldaysinthemonthwhetherworked
ornot.
Thus,Section2cannotserveasbasisofanyrightorclaim.Absent
anyotherlegalbasis,petitionersclaimforwagedifferentialsmust
fail.
Even assuming that Section 2, Rule IV of Book III is valid,
petitionersclaimwillstillfail.Thebasicruleinthisjurisdictionis
no work, no pay. The right to be paid for unworked
15
days is
generally limited to the ten legal holidays in a year. Petitioners
claimisbasedonamistakennotionthatSection2,RuleIVofBook
IIIgaverisetoarighttobepaidforunworkeddaysbeyondtheten
legal holidays. In effect, petitioners demand that ANTECO should
pay them on Sundays, the unworked half of Saturdays and other
daysthattheydonotworkatall.Petitionerslineofreasoningisnot
onlyaviolationofthenowork,nopayprinciple,italsogivesrise
to an invidious classification, a violation of the equal protection
clause. Sustaining petitioners argument will make monthlypaid
employeesaprivilegedclasswhoarepaideveniftheydonotwork.
The use of a divisor less than 365 days cannot make ANTECO
automatically liable for underpayment. The facts show that
petitioners are required to work only from Monday to Friday and
half

_______________

14InsularBankofAsiaandAmericaEmployeesUnion(IBAAEU)v.Inciong,217

Phil.629132SCRA663(1984).
15SeeArticle94oftheLaborCodeandExecutiveOrderNo.223.

642

642 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Odangovs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission

ofSaturday.Thus,theminimumallowabledivisoris287,whichis
theresultof365days,less52Sundaysandless26Saturdays(or52
halfSaturdays).Anydivisorbelow287daysmeansthatANTECOs
workersaredeprivedoftheirholidaypayforsomeoralloftheten
legal holidays. The 304 days divisor used by ANTECO is clearly
abovetheminimumof287days.
Finally,petitionersciteCharteredBankEmployeesAssociationv.
16
Ople asananalogoussituation.Petitionershavemisreadthiscase.
In Chartered Bank, the workers sought payment for unworked
legal holidays as a right guaranteed by a valid law. In this case,
petitionersseekpaymentofwagesforunworkednonlegalholidays
citingasbasisavoidimplementingrule.Thecircumstancesarealso
markedly different. In Chartered Bank, there was a collective
bargainingagreementthatprescribedthedivisor.NoCBAexistsin
this case. In Chartered Bank, the employer was liable for
underpaymentbecausethedivisoritusedwas251days,afigurethat
clearlyfailstoaccountforthetenlegalholidaysthelawrequiresto
be paid. Here, the divisor ANTECO uses is 304 days. This figure
does not deprive petitioners of their right to be paid on legal
holidays.
Afinalnote.ANTECOsdefenseislikewisebasedonSection2,
RuleIVofBookIIIoftheOmnibusRulesImplementingtheLabor
Code although ANTECOs interpretation of this provision is
opposite that of petitioners. It is deplorable that both parties
premised their arguments on an implementing rule that the Court
had declared void twenty years ago in Insular
17
Bank. This case is
citedprominentlyinbasiccommentaries. Andyet,counselforboth
partiesfailedtoconsiderthis.Thisdoesnotspeakwellofthequality
of representation they rendered to their clients. This controversy
should have ended long ago had either counsel first checked the
validity of the implementing rule on which they based their
contentions.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Resolution of the
Court of Appeals DISMISSING CAG.R. SP No. 51519 is
AFFIRMED.

_______________

16G.R.No.L44717,28August1985,138SCRA273.

17SeeAzucena,The Labor Code with Comments and Cases, Vol. 1, pp. 174 to

175.

643

VOL.431,JUNE10,2004 643
Peoplevs.Dagpin

SOORDERED.

Davide,Jr.(C.J.,Chairman),Panganiban,YnaresSantiago
andAzcuna,JJ.,concur.

Petitiondenied,resolutioninCAG.R.SPNo.51519affirmed.

Note.Jurisdiction of the Court in a petition for review on


certiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourtislimitedtoreviewing
onlyerrorsoflaw.(Baricuatro,Jr.vs.CourtofAppeals,325SCRA
137[2000])

o0o

Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.