[ LABOR 2 | ATTY.
NOLASCO ] 1
7. St. Martin Funeral Home, Petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations
Martinez, Commission And Bienvenido Aricayos, Respondents.
G.R. No. 130866. September 16, 1998
Ponente:
Digest by: BACINA
TOPIC: NLRC - Appeal via Rule 65
PARTIES:
Employer: St Martin
Employee: Bienvenido Aricayos
DOCTRINE:
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. Consequently, all such petitions should
henceforth be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the
doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the appropriate forum for the relief
desired.
RECIT-READY:
FACTS:
 Petitioner, St. Martin Funeral Homes, Inc. (St. Martin) was originally
owned by the mother of Amelita Malabed.
 Respondent Bienvenido Aricayos, a former overseas contract
worker, was granted financial assistance by Amelita’s mother. In
return, Aricayos extended assistance to Amelita’s mother
inmanaging St. Martin without compensation.
 There was no written employment contract between Amelita’s mother
and Aricayos nor is he listed as an employee in the payroll of St.
Martin.
 When Amelita’s mother died, she took over as manager of St. Martin.
After discovering some alleged anomalies, Amelita removed the
authority of Aricayos and his wife from taking part inmanaging St.
Martin’s operations.
 Aricayos filed complaints for illegal dismissal with prayer for
reinstatement, payment of back wages, and damages.
 LA - decision in favor of petitioner on October 25, 1996 declaring that
no employer-employee relationship existed between the parties and,
therefore, his office had no jurisdiction over the case.
 Private respondent appealed to the NLRC. NLRC remanded the
case to LA. MR was filed by the petitioner which was denied.
 From NLRC – went straight to SC.
ISSUE/S:
WON the decision of the NLRC are appealable to the Court of Appeals.
HELD:
First established in 1972, decisions of NLRC were declared to the appealable
to the Secretary of Labor and ultimately to the President. But under the
present state of law, there is no provision for appeals from NLRC decisions.
The court held that there is an underlying power of the Courts to scrutinize
the acts of such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though
no right of review is given by statute; that the purpose of judicial review is to
keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protect the
substantial rights of the parties; and that is part of the checks and balances
which restricts the separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust
adjudications.
Subsequently, under RA 7902, effective March 1995, the mode for judicial
review over NLRC decisions is that of a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
The same confuses by declaring that the CA has no appellate jurisdiction
over decisions falling within the appellate jurisdiction of SC, including the
NLRC decisions.
Therefore, 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 Rule65.
Consequently, all such petitions should henceforth be initially filed in the
Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of
courts as the appropriate forum for the relief desired.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING: REMANDED TO CA
(GO2) 2018 - 2019