Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
COURT OF APPEALS
Cebu City
MANUEL ROZAL,
Petitioner,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
COMMENT
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Petitioner MANUEL ROZAL seeks relief under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure in assailing the Resolution dated 1 February 2005
promulgated by the Honorable National Labor Relations Commission. Fourth
Division, Cebu City, which reconsidered and set aside its own Decision dated 31
August 2004 which reversed the appealed decision dated 14 November 2003 of
the Honorable Labor Arbiter, and its Resolution dated 31 May 2005 denying the
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration for want of legal and factual basis.
The facts relevant and material to the resolution of the petition may be
summarized as follows:
2
CONTENTIONS
DISCUSSION
1
Annex 1 – Opposition dated 4/5/05 to Rozal’s Motion for Reconsideration
4
the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and
correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.”
1. xxx
x-x-x
The facts above show that certiorari does not lie against the questioned
Resolutions of the public respondent. For an abuse of discretion to justify a
review by certiorari, the same must be patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or
to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an
arbitrary and despotic manner and by reason of passion and hostility.
2
Annex 2 – Verification of Manuel Rozal, page 27 of Petitition
5
(Commission on Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 2000 (1996).
The action of the public respondent to reconsider and set aside its own decision
dated 31 August 2004 was in contemplation of law and conforms with the facts
and law of the decision dated 14 November 2003 of the Honorable Labor Arbiter.
The public respondent took a cursory second glance at the circumstances
obtaining in the instant case and saw that the Labor Arbiter was correct to rule
that there was no employer-employee relationship between the complainant and
private respondent.
The special civil action of certiorari is not a remedy designed for correction
of errors of judgment. (Azores vs. SEC, 252 SCRA 387 (1996); Ramnani vs CA, 221
SCRA 582 (1993).
Thus, there was no merit to the motion for reconsideration of the petitioner
when he stated in par. 18 thereof that “xxx being a son of Jaime B. Valida Sr., he
is an heir of Jaime B. Valida and as such succeeded in the business. Rather, the
public respondent gave weight to the opposition to the motion for reconsideration
of the private respondent, which averred in par. 5 thereof that “xxx respondent is
not the only heir of the estate of the decedent as there are other indispensable
siblings…”
Private respondent prays for such other relief just and equitable under the
premises.
LEO S. GIRON
Counsel for Private Respondent
253 Avenida Veteranos, Tacloban City
Roll No. 37379
IBP Lifetime No. 00733
PTR No. 5803034; 1-3-05; Tacloban City
Atty.Jennifer Y. Verzosa
Counsel for the Petitioner
2/F Metrobank Bldg.
P. Burgos St., Tacloban City
EXPLANATION
Seven copies of the Comment (with annexes) are filed with the Court of
Appeals, Cebu City, by registered mail, personal filing being impractical due to
constraints of time and distance. A copy each of the same Comment are
furnished the opposing counsel and public respondent NLRC 4 th Division by
separate registered mail for the same reasons.
7
LEO S. GIRON