28. ST.
MARTIN FUNERAL HOME vs NLRC that the purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdic-
G.R. No. 130866 September 16, 1998
Atmos
Topic: Labor dispute settlement machinery
Petitioners:ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOME
Respondents:NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and BIENVENIDO ARICAYOS,
Ponente: Regalado, J.
FACTS:
Bienvenido Aricayos alleged that he started working as operations manager in St.
Martin Funeral Home on 6 Feb 1995. There was no contract of employment nor was
his name included in the in the semi- monthly payroll.
On1996 he was dismissed from employment for misappropriating ₱38K which was in-
tended for payment of VAT. St. Martin claims that Aricayos is not an employee but
only the uncle of Amelita Malabed, owner of St. Martin. Aricayos was allegedly vol-
untarily helping, as an indication of gratitude, because Amelita’s mother gave him
financial assistance when he was still working overseas.
When Amelita’s mother passed away, Amelita took over the management of the
business. She then discovered that there were arrears in the payment of taxes and
other government fees, although the records purported to show that the same were
already paid. Aricayas filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
The labor arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, confirming that indeed, there was no
employer-employee relationship between the two and hence, there could be no il-
legal dismissal in such a situation.
The respondent appealed to the secretary of NLRC who set aside the decision and
remanded the case to the labor arbiter. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsidera-
tion, but was denied by the NLRC. Now, petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court
alleging that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.
Issue: Does the appeal of the petitioners to the Supreme Court was proper?
Held: NO.
The decisions from the NLRC were appealable to the Secretary of Labor, whose decisions are
then appealable to the Office of the President. However, the new rules do not anymore pro-
vide provisions regarding appellate review for decisions rendered by the NLRC.
However in this case, the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to review such decisions
from the NLRC by virtue of their role under the check and balance system and the perceived
intention of the legislative body who enacted the new rules.
“It held that there is an underlying power of the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agen-
cies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute;
tion and protect the substantial rights of the parties; and that it is that part of the checks
and balances which restricts the separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust
adjudications.”
The petitioners rightfully filed a motion for reconsideration, but the appeal or certiorari
should have been filed initially to the Court of Appeals – as consistent with the principle of
hierarchy of courts. As such, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals.
This is illogical and impracticable since there are no cases in the labor code wherein the deci-
sions, resolutions, order or awards are within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
or of any other court for that matter.
There was an inaccuracy in the term used for the intended mode of review. The purpose of
Batas Blg. 129 is to ease the workload of the Supreme Court by the transfer of some of its
burden of review of factual issues to the Court of Appeals. The court held, therefore, that
ever since appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court were eliminated, the legislative in-
tendment was that the special civil action of certiorari was and still is the proper vehicle for
judicial review of the decisions of the NLRC.
Appeal on certiorari (RULES OF COURT, Rule 45): SC only.
Special civil action of Certiorari (RULES OF COURT, Rule 65): SC and CA, concurrently.
WHEREFORE, under the foregoing premises, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby RE-
MANDED, and all pertinent records thereof ordered to be FORWARDED, to the Court of Ap-
peals for appropriate action and disposition consistent with the views and ruling herein set
forth, without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Doctrine: The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its juris-
diction and protect the substantial rights of the parties; and that it is that part of the checks
and balances which restricts the separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust ad-
judications.”