Appeals Digest

Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company vs. Lepanto Capataz Union February 18 , 2013

G.R. No. 157086

Facts: Respondent Lepanto Capataz Union (Union), filed a petition for consent election. Petitioner Lepanto opposed the petition. Lepanto pointed out that the capatazes were already members of LEU, the exclusive representative of all rank-and-file employees of its Mine Division. Med-Arbiter issued a ruling to the effect that the capatazes could form a separate bargaining unit. On appeal, the then DOLE Undersecretary affirmed the ruling of the MedArbiter. On November 28, 2000, the certification of election ensued however, Lepanto filed a protest. A hearing was held but Lepanto did not submit its position paper. Thus, Med-Arbiter rendered a decision certifying the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all Capatazes of Lepanto. Lepanto appealed such decision but the the DOLE Secretary denied it. Lepanto, without first filing a motion for reconsideration, filed a petition for certiorari to the CA. CA dismissed Lepantos petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to file a prior motion for reconsideration. Lepanto moved to reconsider the dismissal, but the CA denied it. Issue: Whether the findings of the Med-Arbiter affirmed by DOLE Secretary can be the subject of judicial review under Rule 45? Ruling: No. The office of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court requires that it shall raise only questions of law. The factual findings by quasi-judicial agencies, such as the Department of Labor and Employment, when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great respect in view of their expertise in their respective field. Judicial review of labor cases does not go far as to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence on which the labor official’s findings rest. It is not the court’s function to assess and evaluate all over again the evidence, testimonial and documentary, adduced by the parties to an appeal, particularly where the findings of both the trial court (here, the DOLE Secretary) and the appellate court on the matter coincide, as in this case at bar. The Rule limits that function of the Court to review or revision of errors of law and not to a second analysis of the evidence. Here, petitioners would have us re-calibrate all over again the factual basis and the probative value of the pieces of evidence submitted by the Company to the DOLE, contrary to the provisions of Rule 45. Thus, absent any showing of whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment, and unless lack of any basis for the conclusions made by the appellate court may be amply demonstrated, we may not disturb such factual findings.

Villamar-Sandoval vs Cailipan

G.R. No. 200727

March 4, 2013 Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint for damages before the RTC against the respondent. The respondent filed its answer one day late prompting petitioner to move to declare respondents in default. The RTC denied the motion of the petitioner and admitting the answer of the respondent. The respondent failed to appear as well as file a pre-trial brief despite due notice on pre-trial hearing. The petitioner prayed to declare the defendant in default. The RTC granted the motion and petitioner proceeded with the presentation of evidence ex parte. The case was submitted for resolution. The respondent filed before the CA petition for certiorari under Rule 65. On even date, the RTC rendered a Decision in favor of petitioner; respondents filed a Notice of Appeal with the CA, while its initially filed certiorari petition was still pending resolution before the same appellate court. The CA granted the respondent petition grounded on the impropriety of the order of default. Petitioner filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration arguing that: (1) since the main case had already been decided by the RTC and respondents have availed of the remedy of appeal, the latter’s petition for certiorari filed with the CA was already moot and academic. Issue: Whether respondents’ petition for certiorari was an improper remedy and/or had been rendered moot and academic? Ruling: Yes. It is well-settled that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. The simultaneous filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure cannot be allowed since one remedy would necessarily cancel out the other. The existence and availability of the right of appeal proscribes resort to certiorari because one of the requirements for availment of the latter is precisely that there should be no appeal. Although respondents did not err in filing the certiorari petition with the CA on January 11, 2011 – as they only received the RTC’s Decision three days after the said date and therefore could not have availed of the remedy of an appeal at that time – the Court observes that respondents should have (a) withdrawn their certiorari petition and instead raised the jurisdictional errors stated therein in their appeal or (b) at the very least, informed the CA’s Twenty-First Division of the Decision rendered on the main case and the filing of their Notice of Appeal on January 22, 2011. Prudence should have guided

them to pursue either course of action considering the well-entrenched conflict between the remedies of an appeal and a petition for certiorari, of which they should have been well aware of.