St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC

Bienvenido Aricayos filed an illegal dismissal complaint with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch No. III against St. Martin Funeral Home. He alleged that he had worked as its Operations Manager from February 6, 1995 without a written contract or inclusion in the payroll. He said he was dismissed on January 22, 1996 for allegedly misappropriating P38,000.00 meant for the business's VAT payment to the BIR. The funeral home answered that he was not an employee but the uncle of its owner, Amelita Malabed, who had voluntarily helped her mother oversee the business after receiving financial help from her. After her mother died in January 1996, Amelita found tax arrears and barred him and his wife from management. The Labor Arbiter found no employer-employee relationship and therefore no jurisdiction. The NLRC set this aside and remanded the case for further proceedings, and it denied reconsideration. The funeral home then filed a petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

1. 1Whether decisions of the NLRC are subject to appeal to the Supreme Court, and what the proper mode and forum for judicial review of NLRC decisions is.

The Court did not reach the merits. After P.D. 1391 abolished appeals from the NLRC to the Secretary of Labor, the Labor Code has provided no appeal from NLRC decisions. Art. 223 [now Art. 229] makes them final and executory ten calendar days after receipt. The courts nonetheless retain an underlying power to review the NLRC's acts on questions of law and jurisdiction. The remedy has been a motion for reconsideration, followed by a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 within the reglementary period. R.A. 7902, amending Sec. 9 of B.P. 129, deleted the paragraph excluding Labor Code decisions from the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction. At the same time, it excepted from the CA's exclusive appellate jurisdiction cases "falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with x x x the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended". The Court reviewed the Senate deliberations, including the sponsor's aim of easing the Supreme Court's workload. It concluded that the legislative intent was review by certiorari and that the use of the word "appeal" could have been a lapsus plumae. It held that "all references in the amended Section 9 of B.P. No. 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65." Because the Supreme Court and the CA have concurrent original jurisdiction over certiorari, such petitions must first be filed in the CA under the hierarchy of courts. The petition was remanded, with its records, to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.