Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Digest ?.?.??.178837
Case Digest ?.?.??.178837
178837
2014-09-01
𝙲𝙾𝙻𝙴𝙶𝙸𝙾 𝙳𝙴 𝚂𝙰𝙽 𝙹𝚄𝙰𝙽 𝙳𝙴 𝙻𝙴𝚃𝚁𝙰𝙽
𝚟𝚜.
Issues:
Whether or not the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
NLRC when the latter dismissed petitioner's appeal from the LA's decision for
respondent's failure to attach a certification of non-forum shopping to her
Memorandum of Appeal in... violation of NLRC Resolution 01-02 (Series of 2002); and
(2) Whether or not the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
NLRC when the latter declared respondent to have been dismissed on valid grounds
and in accordance with due process.
Dissatisfied, petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA on the ground
that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction: (1) when it ruled that respondent’s appeal was not perfected due to lack of
certification of non forum shopping; (2) when it reconsidered its previous finding that
petitioner had not acted in bad faith on the basis of unfounded and insignificant
claim; (3) when it affirmed respondent’s dismissal in spite of the fact that it is not for a
just or authorized cause and without due process; and (4) when it denied respondent’s
motion for reconsideration on the alleged ground that it was not verified.
DECISION:
The Court GRANTS the petition and REVERSES the Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 92933, dated January 29, 2007 and its Resolution dated May 25,
2007, and REINSTATES the Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission,
dated November 18, 2005 which dismissed the appeal of respondent Isidra Dela Rosa-
Meris
DECISION OF CA
From the aforesaid Decision, both parties filed their respective motions for
reconsideration. Acting thereon, the CA issued a Resolution48 dated May 25, 2007,
maintaining its earlier decision but granting attorney’s fees and interest in favor of
respondent, the fallothereof reads: WHEREFORE, Our Decision dated 29 January
2007 is hereby MODIFIED in that petitioner is granted attorney’s fees equivalent
to 10% of the monetary award; and upon finality of this judgment, interest at
the rate of 12% per annum is hereby imposed on the total monetary award.
Private respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration is accordingly DENIED.
Hence, the instant petition withthe following grounds for the allowance thereof, to wit:
I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DEPARTED FROM THE ACCEPTED AND
USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.