Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

PUREFOODS CORPORATION v.

NLRC (1989)
Regalado, J. | Certiorari
Petitioner: PURE FOODS CORPORATION
Respondents: NLRC, REMIGIO CLAVIO, ANDRES CATUBAY, VIRGILIO UMALI,
ORLANDO REY and JORGE DEL ROSARIO

Summary: Five employees of Purefoods were singled out in an alleged pilferage. They
filed an illegal dismissal complaint. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Purefoods, but this
was reversed by NLRC, whose decision became final as no MR was filed. Purefoods files
a special civil action for certiorari before SC, imputing grave abuse of discretion. SC
dismissed the petition, ruling that certiorari is not a substitute for lost remedies, and errors
of judgment are beyond the scope of certiorari.
Doctrines:
 Certiorari will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law.
 Errors of judgment, as distinguished from errors of jurisdiction, are not within the
province of a special civil action for certiorari.

Facts
 Clavio, Catubay (drivers), Umali (utility man), Rey (delivery man) and del Rosario
(checker) were employees of Pure Foods Corporation.
 A pilferage incident allegedly happened. Of all the employees involved from the
packaging to the delivery of goods, only respondents were indefinitely suspended,
immediately after the aforesaid incident and without prior investigation. Their
suspension was continued until their dismissal without any notice to them or
clearance from the then Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE).
 Private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unpaid wages before
MOLE. Petitioner was directed to reinstate respondents with full backwages, and
to pay said complainants their unpaid wages prior to their dismissal.
 Petitioner appealed. The Deputy Minister set aside the order and endorsed the
complaint to the NLRC-NCR Arbitration Branch for compulsory arbitration.
 Labor Arbiter found that except for Clavio, the dismissal of the other complainants
is justified. But for failure to furnish them with a clearance application for
termination as well as the belated filing of the same with MOLE, Pure Foods has
to give separation pay. Clavio was to be reinstated with backwages.
 Both parties appealed to NLRC. NLRC ordered to reinstate the other four to their
former positions, with backwages equivalent to three (3) years each without
qualifications and deductions. This became final without any motion for
reconsideration having been filed by petitioner.
 Respondents moved for the issuance of a writ of execution. Petitioner opposed,
filing at the same time its MR. NLRC denied for having been filed out of time and
for lack of merit. Hence this special civil action for certiorari before SC.
Issue, Held
WON NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion in totally reversing the findings of
facts of the labor arbiter – NO
 Certiorari will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law against the acts of NLRC. In the present case,
the plain and adequate remedy expressly provided by law was an MR.
o The filing of such a motion is intended to afford NLRC an opportunity to
correct any actual or fancied error attributed to it by way of a re-examination
of the legal and factual aspects of the case.
o An improvident resort to certiorari cannot be used as a tool to circumvent
the right of NLRC to review and purge its decision of an oversight, if any.
Neither should this special civil action be resorted to as a shield from the
consequences of petitioner's own error in the choice of remedies.
 The imputation of grave abuse of discretion was inapt and erroneous.
o Errors of judgment, as distinguished from errors of jurisdiction, are not within
the province of a special civil action for certiorari.
o If there is any error by NLRC in its analysis of facts and its evaluation of
evidence, it is not of such a degree as may be stigmatized as a grave abuse
of discretion. GAOD means such capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and it must be shown that
the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or despotically.
 Charge of pilferage hinges on mere affidavits of the security guards, which had
serious discrepancies as assessed by the NLRC.
o A lady guard alleged that the truck of Catubay was stopped at the gate and
found with an excess of 12 bags of hotdogs; another guard alleged that the
truck was parked at the motor pool; still another one stated that the truck
driven by Catubay had left the company premises.
o The reporting of the guards to the security detachment was orchestrated.
The affidavits of security guards were identical in their allegations regarding
the incident except as to the names of those involved, their places of
assignment, and truck plate numbers.
o One guard stated that he saw several persons bringing down a package at
the motor pool, whereas the investigation by the security detachment
revealed that Catubay was the only person there.
DISMISSED. Should reinstatement be impossible, petitioner is to pay respondents
separation pay equivalent to one (1) month's salary for every year of service.

Вам также может понравиться