[ G.R. NO. 148628. February 28, 2007 ] 545 Phil. 670
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. NO. 148628. February 28, 2007 ]
JOSE SALINAS, MATEO ROGEL P. TORCUATO, LIZALOR M. INES, MA. PEARLIE R. PALOMPO, JOSELITO REDOBLE, JOEY REYES, MYLENE P. MENDOZA, LIZA A. RAGUINDIN, VICTORIO R. PILASPILAS, PRUDELAINE R. NUGAL, RICHARD TAMONTE, JESUS AQUINO AND MARIO DINO GAREZA, PETITIONERS, [1] VS. DIGITAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC. AND/OR JUAN V. BORRA, JR./JOHN GOKONGWEI,[2] RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
CORONA, J.:
In this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioners seek a reversal of the Court of Appeals’ May 31, 2001 resolution[3] which dismissed their petition for certiorari for having been filed without first resorting to a motion for reconsideration of the National Labor Relations Commission’s (NLRC’s) January 26, 2001 resolution.[4] The facts of the case as found by the labor arbiter and the NLRC follow. Petitioners, except Mario Dino Gareza, were former employees of Government Regional Telephone System (GRTS), an agency attached to the Department of Transportation and Communications. GRTS conducted a bidding for its privatization which was won by respondent Digital Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (Digitel) on April 19, 1993. Petitioners, including Gareza, submitted their application for employment to respondent Digitel. They were hired on probationary basis for six months. Their performance before the end of such period was to be reviewed to determine their qualification for regular status. To signify their conformity, petitioners affixed their signatures on their respective appointment papers. Prior to the end of the six-month probationary period, respondent Digitel evaluated petitioners’ performance and found it below par. The assessment was made known to them but they refused to acknowledge the same and refused to sign the evaluation report. On August 10, 1994, they were notified in writing of their termination. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents Digitel and/or Juan V. Borra, Jr.[5] and/or John Gokongwei[6] with the labor arbiter who initially ruled in their favor.[7] On appeal, the NLRC found the labor arbiter’s findings speculative and remanded the case to the arbiter for further hearing since there were matters which required “if not clarificatory questioning, testimonies of the contending parties for the truth to be arrived at."[8] After hearing, the labor arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit[9] since petitioners were probationary employees whose contracts of employment were not renewed for their failure to meet the reasonable standards made known to them at the time of engagement. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the above findings.[10] Instead of filing, however, a motion for reconsideration, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. The petition was dismissed in the assailed decision.[11] According to the Court of Appeals, “the precipitate filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 without first moving for reconsideration of the assailed resolution warrant(ed) the outright dismissal of the case."[12] Hence, this recourse. The petition lacks merit. It is settled that certiorari will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In the case at bar, the plain and adequate remedy was a motion for reconsideration of the impugned resolution within ten days from receipt of the questioned resolution of the NLRC, a procedure which was jurisdictional.[13] A motion for reconsideration is indispensable before resort to the special civil action for certiorari to afford the court or tribunal the opportunity to correct its error, if any.[14] The NLRC cannot be denied its right to review its pronouncements. “On policy considerations, such prerequisite would provide an expeditious termination to labor disputes and assist in the decongestion of court dockets by obviating improvident and unnecessary recourse to judicial proceedings."[15] While the rule admits of exceptions,[16] petitioners could not arrogate to themselves the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration was necessary or not. They had to expressly, clearly and satisfactorily prove that their claim fell under any of those. To dispense with this requirement, there had to be a concrete, compelling and valid reason excusing them from compliance therewith. In the petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals,[17] there was no explanation for the course taken. In fact, petitioners did not explain their omission to file the required motion for reconsideration. Seeking refuge under the exceptions to the general rule, it was up to the petitioners to fully convince the Court of Appeals that their case merited exemption from the rule. The burden of proof rested on them to prove that their case was, in fact, covered by the exemption so claimed. Before us, petitioners can only reason that they did not file a motion for reconsideration because they had waited long enough to vindicate their rights. That is not by any means sufficient justification for their case to fall within the exceptions. Their imputation of delay deserves scant consideration for being a mere afterthought or a lame and feeble excuse to justify a fatal omission. Thus, we are in accord with the Court of Appeals in holding that the petition for certiorari[18] must fail. “Certiorari is not a shield from the adverse consequences of an omission to file the required motion for reconsideration."[19] A review of the merits of this case is therefore unnecessary. The NLRC resolution dated January 26, 2001 which affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter[20] has become final and executory for petitioners’ failure to seasonably file a motion for reconsideration.[21] WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The dismissal of the petition for certiorari in the assailed May 31, 2001 resolution of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED. Puno, (Chairperson), Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Garcia, JJ., concur. Azcuna, J., on official leave.