PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTIC INC. vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION
Facts
In NLRCCs Resolution dated May 31, 2001, petitioner Philippine
Journalists, Inc. (PJI) was adjudged liable in the total amount of
P6,447,008.57 for illegally dismissing 31 complainants-employees and that
there was no basis for the implementation of petitioners retrenchment
program. Thereafter, the parties executed a Compromise Agreement dated
July 9, 2001, where PJI undertook to reinstate the 31 complainant-employees
effective July 1, 2001 without loss of seniority rights and benefits; 17 of them
who were previously retrenched were agreed to be given full and complete
payment of their respective monetary claims, while 14 others would be paid
their monetary claims minus what they received by way of separation pay.
The compromise agreement was submitted to the NLRC for approval.
All the employees mentioned in the agreement and in the NLRC Resolution
affixed their signatures thereon. They likewise signed the Joint Manifesto and
Declaration of Mutual Support and Cooperation which had also been
submitted for the consideration of the labor tribunal. The NLRC forthwith
issued another Resolution on July 25, 2002, which among others declared
that the compromise agreement was approved and NCMB-NCR-NS-03-087-00
was deemed closed and terminated.
In the meantime, however, the Union filed another Notice of Strike on July 1,
2002. In an Order dated September 16, 2002, the DOLE Secretary certified
the case to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. The case was
docketed as NCMB-NCR- NS-07-251-02. In its Resolution dated July 31, 2003,
the NLRC ruled that the complainants were not illegally dismissed. The May
31, 2001 Resolution declaring the retrenchment program illegal did not
attain finality as it had been academically mooted by the compromise
agreement entered into between both parties on July 9, 2001. The Union
assailed the ruling of the NLRC before the CA via petition for certiorari under
Rule 65. In its Decision dated August 17, 2004, the appellate court held that
the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ruling for PJI. The compromise
agreement referred only to the award given by the NLRC to the complainants
in the said case, that is, the obligation of the employer to the complainants.
Issue
Whether or not the petitionersC petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure is a proper remedy in this case.
Ruling

At the outset, we note that this case was brought before us via petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The
proper remedy, however, was to file a petition under Rule 45. It must be
stressed that certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy narrow in scope and
inflexible in character. It is not a general utility tool in the legal workshop.
Moreover, the special civil action for certiorari will lie only when a court has
acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
Be that as it may, a petition for certiorari may be treated as a petition for
review under Rule 45. Such move is in accordance with the liberal spirit
pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice. As the
instant petition was filed within the prescribed fifteen-day period, and in view
of the substantial issues raised, the Court resolves to give due course to the
petition and treat the same as a petition for review on certiorari.