Bugaoisan V Owi Group

Bugaoisan V.
Owi Group GR 226208

The Facts: A complaint for constructive illegal dismissal and payment of salary for the unexpired
portion of the employment period, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees was filed
by the petitioner against respondents OWI Group Manila, Inc. (OWI) and Morris Corporation
(Morris) (collectively referred to as the respondents) and Marlene D. Alejandrino before the
NLRC. The case was docketed as NLRC NCR OFW CASE No. (L)01-0032-12. In that case, the
petitioner alleged that on May 6, 2011 she responded to an advertisement that she saw from OWI
regarding a job opening in Australia. She sent a copy of her resume online and was thereafter
scheduled for an interview at OWI's office in Makati. OWI is the agent of Morris here in the
Philippines. OWI offered petitioner full time employment after she underwent a series of three
interviews and did a cooking demonstration. The following were the terms and conditions of her
employment: Appended to the offer of full-time employment was the petitioner's employment
contract with Morris, a foreign corporation based in Australia. It was stated that her term of
employment was for one year. Petitioner was later medically cleared to work as chef for Morris
by OWI's accredited clinic. On September 25, 2011, petitioner flew from Manila to Perth,
Australia. Upon arrival, she was asked to sign another offer of full-time employment by Morris.
It was indicated in the offer that her position would be of a breakfast chef and she would receive
an annual salary of AUS$75,000.00. She was likewise entitled to a paid annual leave of 190
hours or 25 days. Morris Corporation Australia Pty Ltd will pay your economy class airfare to
Australia and one return flight to the Philippines once your 457 visa or your right to work in
Australia has expired. If your contract is terminated by either party during the first 2 years of
employment with Morris Corporation, you will be expected to return the full cost of the above
stated travel. On October 2, 2011, petitioner was deployed to Morris' mining site in Randalls
Kalgoorlie, Australia. She was tasked to prepare breakfast buffet for Morris' 85 employees all by
herself. Due to the sheer number of employees, petitioner had to work through the night in order
to serve breakfast on time. It was only then did she learn that after cooking the dishes, she was
also the one who was tasked to wash the dishes. Overwhelmed with her duties and concerned for
her safety when she goes to work at night, petitioner raised her concerns to the attention of
Morris. Morris refused to give her an assistant to aid her in her duties because the Randalls
mining site is relatively small and the tasks can be done by one chef. Nevertheless, Morris tried
to accommodate her by transferring her to its mining site in Golden Grove, Geraldton, Western
Australia. The mining site in Golden Grove is bigger but petitioner worked with a team. On
October 20, 2011, petitioner was transferred to Morris' mining site in Golden Grove, Geraldton,
Western Australia. She still performed the same task only this time she had to prepare a breakfast
buffet for Morris' 550 mining workers. On the evening of November 12, 2011, while preparing
the breakfast for the following day, petitioner felt a tingling sensation followed by numbness on
both of her hands. She was referred to Morris' on-site nurse, who gave her pain reliever. She was
diagnosed to be suffering from Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) and was advised to undergo an
intensive examination for confirmation. Petitioner did not heed the advice of the on-site nurse.
Instead, she went back to her work. In the morning of November 14, 2011, she was distraught
when the tingling sensation and numbness on both of her hands worsened. Consequently, she
was again brought to the on-site nurse. Thereafter, she was flown to Perth, Australia for an
extensive medical test. Several physicians, including Morris' preferred physician, conducted a
series of medical examinations on petitioner. She was diagnosed to be suffering from Bilateral
CTS and was declared unfit to work for several days. Dr. Timothy Hewitt strongly advised her to
undergo surgery. Petitioner filed a compensation claim with the Worker's Compensation and
Injury Management (WCIM) of Australia to seek compensation for her wages while she was still
unfit for work or reimbursement of her medical expenses. Her application, however, was denied.
The Issue
The primary issue now that must be resolved is whether or not the CA was correct when it went
beyond the issues of the case and the assigned errors raised by respondents when it filed
the certiorari petition under Rule 65.
The ruling:
The Rules of Court is clear and unambiguous in this regard. A petition for certiorari is governed
by Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, which reads:
Section 1. Petition for certiorari. - When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction, and there is no appeal,
or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and
praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal,
board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. To eradicate
confusion, what respondents filed with the CA was a special civil action for certiorari, under
Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. The issues raised by respondents before the appellate
court ascribed grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in resolving the merits of the
case. If respondents wanted to question the matter regarding contract duration, it should have
raised the issue at the earliest possible opportunity or raised it as error on the part of the NLRC,
thus, strengthening its claim of abuse of discretion committed by the latter. This issue, however,
remained unraised. A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It cannot be
used for any other purpose, as its function is limited to keeping the inferior court within the
bounds of its jurisdiction. The supervisory jurisdiction of a court over the issuance of a writ
of certiorari cannot be exercised for the purpose of reviewing the intrinsic correctness of a
judgment of the lower court - on the basis either of the law or the facts of the case, or of the
wisdom or legal soundness of the decision. Even if the findings of the court are incorrect, as long
as it has jurisdiction over the case, such correction is normally beyond the province of certiorari.
Where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but an error of law or fact - a mistake of judgment -
appeal is the remedy. Applying this to the case at bench, the supervisory jurisdiction of the CA
under Rule 65 was confined only to the determination of whether or not the NLRC committed
grave abuse of discretion in deciding the issues brought before it on appeal. To recapitulate, the
CA is allowed to consider the factual issues only insofar as they serve as the basis of the
jurisdictional error imputed to the lower court or in this case, the NLRC. What, then, is the
"question of law" that must be resolved by this Court in a Rule 45 petition assailing a decision of
the CA on a Rule 65 certiorari petition? In the case of Montoya v. Transmed Manila
Corporation/Mr. Ellena, et al., the Court ruled: In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness
of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake
under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against
the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the
same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine
the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of
grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC
decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly .aware that
the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged
before it. This is the approach that should be basic in a Rule 45 review of a CA ruling in a labor
case. Similarly, the petition before the Court involves mixed questions of law and fact.
Respondents, in its Comment claim that the present petition must be denied for the reason that
only questions of law must be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45. They are correct. To
reiterate, the CA correctly affirmed the findings of the NLRC in that: (1) petitioner was illegally
dismissed; and (2) petitioner was entitled to her unpaid salaries for the unexpired portion of the
employment contract, damages and attorney's fees. However, it departed from the issues
presented by the parties and decided by the labor tribunals when it modified the award of unpaid
salaries to petitioner notwithstanding the fact that neither party ever raised as an issue the matter
regarding duration of petitioner's employment contract. The labor tribunals ruled that the award
of unpaid salaries should be the amount corresponding to the unexpired portion of the
employment contract which is two (2) years. The CA, on the other hand, modified the award on
the ground that the second contract was not clear as to whether or not the original duration of one
(1) year had been extended. Thus, applying the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code regarding
perfection of contracts, it posits that the one (1) year period should be applied. Without an iota of
doubt, this is a question of fact that is outside the scope of a petition for review under rule 65.
The CA is only tasked to determine whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion in its appreciation of factual issues presented before it by any parties. The CA is not
given unbridled discretion to modify factual findings of the NLRC and LA, especially when such
matters have not been assigned as errors nor raised in the pleadings.

Bugaoisan V Owi Group

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bugaoisan V Owi Group

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bugaoisan V.

Owi Group GR 226208

You might also like