VOL.

534, OCTOBER 2, 2007

515

Sim vs. National Labor Relations Commission

*

G.R. No. 157376. October 2, 2007.

CORAZON C. SIM, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS COMMISSION
and EQUITABLE PCI
**
BANK, respondents.
Certiorari Motions for Reconsideration A prior motion for
reconsideration is an indispensable condition to the filing of a
special civil action for certiorari Exceptions.Under Rule 65,
Rules of
_______________
*

THIRD DIVISION.

**

The Court of Appeals, impleaded as respondent, is deleted from the caption

per Section 4, Rule 45 of the RULES OF COURT.

516

516

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sim vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Court, the remedy of filing a special civil action for certiorari is

available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A plain and
adequate remedy is a motion for reconsideration of the assailed
order or resolution, the filing of which is an indispensable
condition to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari. This is
to give the lower court the opportunity to correct itself. There are,
of course, exceptions to the foregoing rule, to wit: (a) where the

order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no

jurisdiction (b) where the questions raised in the certiorari
proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower
court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the
lower court (c) where there is an urgent necessity for the
resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice
the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject
matter of the action is perishable (d) where, under the
circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless (e)
where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme
urgency for relief (f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an
order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the
trial court is improbable (g) where the proceedings in the lower
court are a nullity for lack of due process (h) where the
proceeding was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no
opportunity to object and (i) where the issue raised is one purely
of law or public interest is involved.
Same Same The petitioner may not arrogate to himself the
determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary
or notto dispense with the requirement of filing a motion for
reconsideration, petitioner must show a concrete, compelling, and
valid reason for doing so.Petitioner argues that filing a motion
for reconsideration with the NLRC would be merely an exercise in
futility and useless. But it is not for petitioner to determine
whether it is so. As stressed in Cervantes v. Court of Appeals, 475
SCRA 562 (2005): It must be emphasized that a writ of certiorari
is a prerogative writ, never demandable as a matter of right,
never issued except in the exercise of judicial discretion. Hence,
he who seeks a writ of certiorari must apply for it only in the
manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law
and the Rules. Petitioner may not arrogate to himself the
determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is
necessary or not. To dispense with the requirement of
filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner must show a
concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing
517

VOL. 534, OCTOBER 2, 2007

517

Sim vs. National Labor Relations Commission

so, which petitioner failed to do. Thus, the Court of Appeals

correctly dismissed the petition. (Emphasis supplied)

Same Same Words and Phrases Questions of Law and
Questions of Fact There is a question of fact when doubt or
difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts,
and there is a question of law where the doubt or difference arises
as to what the law is on a certain state of facts.Petitioner also
contends that the issue at bench is purely a question of law,
hence, an exception to the rule. A reading of the petition filed with
the CA shows otherwise. The issues raised in this case are mixed
questions of fact and law. There is a question of fact when doubt
or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged
facts, and there is a question of law where the doubt or difference
arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts.
Labor Law Dismissals Loss of Trust and Confidence
Managerial Employees When an employee accepts a promotion to
a managerial position or to an office requiring full trust and
confidence, she gives up some of the rigid guaranties available to
ordinary workersinfractions which if committed by others would
be overlooked or condoned or penalties mitigated may be visited
with more severe disciplinary action.Petitioner does not deny
having withdrawn the amount of P3,000,000.00 lire from the
banks account. What petitioner submits is that she used said
amount for the Radio Pilipinas sa Roma radio program of the
company. Respondent, however, countered that at the time she
withdrew said amount, the radio program was already off the air.
Respondent is a managerial employee. Thus, loss of trust and
confidence is a valid ground for her dismissal. The mere existence
of a basis for believing that a managerial employee has breached
the trust of the employer would suffice for his/her dismissal.
[w]hen an employee accepts a promotion to a managerial position
or to an office requiring full trust and confidence, she gives up
some of the rigid guaranties available to ordinary workers.
Infractions which if committed by others would be overlooked or
condoned or penalties mitigated may be visited with more severe
disciplinary action. A companys resort to acts of selfdefense
would be more easily justified.
Same Same Jurisdictions It was wrong for the Labor Arbiter
to rule that labor relations system in the Philippines has no
extraterritorial jurisdiction.The Court notes, however, a
palpable error
518

518

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sim vs. National Labor Relations Commission

in the Labor Arbiters disposition of the case, which was affirmed

by the NLRC, with regard to the issue on jurisdiction. It was
wrong for the Labor Arbiter to rule that labor relations system in
the Philippines has no extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Same Same Same Labor arbiters have original and
exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising from employeremployee
relations, including termination disputes involving all workers,
among whom are overseas Filipino workers.Under these
provisions, it is clear that labor arbiters have original and
exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising from employeremployee
relations, including termination disputes involving all workers,
among whom are overseas Filipino workers. In Philippine
National Bank v. Cabansag, 460 SCRA 514 (2005), the Court
pronounced: x x x Whether employed locally or overseas, all
Filipino workers enjoy the protective mantle of Philippine
labor and social legislation, contract stipulations to the
contrary notwithstanding. This pronouncement is in keeping
with the basic public policy of the State to afford protection to
labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities
regardless of sex, race or creed, and regulate the relations
between workers and employers. For the State assures the basic
rights of all workers to selforganization, collective bargaining,
security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work
[Article 3 of the Labor Code of the Philippines See also Section
18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII, 1987 Constitution]. This
ruling is likewise rendered imperative by Article 17 of the Civil
Code which states that laws which have for their object public
order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered
ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by
determination or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.
(Emphasis supplied)

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Salomon, Gonong, Dela Cruz Law Offices for
petitioner.
Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez and Gatmaitan for
respondent.

519

VOL. 534, OCTOBER 2, 2007

519

Sim vs. National Labor Relations Commission

AUSTRIAMARTINEZ, J.:
Corazon Sim (petitioner) filed a case for illegal dismissal
with the Labor Arbiter, alleging that she was initially
employed by Equitable PCIBank (respondent) in 1990 as
Italian Remittance Marketing Consultant to the Frankfurt
Representative Office. Eventually, she was promoted to
Manager position, until September 1999, when she
received a letter from Remegio Davidthe Senior Officer,
European Head of PCIBank, and Managing Director of
PCIBEuropeinforming her that she was being dismissed
due to loss of trust and confidence based on alleged
mismanagement and misappropriation of funds.
Respondent denied any employeremployee relationship
between them, and sought the dismissal of the complaint.
On September 3, 2001, the Labor Arbiter rendered its
Decision dismissing
the case for want of jurisdiction and/or
1
lack of merit. According to the Labor Arbiter:
It should be stressed at this juncture that the labor relations
system in the Philippines has no extraterritorial jurisdiction. It is
limited to the relationship between labor and capital within the
Philippines. Since complainant was hired and assigned in a
foreign land, although by a Philippine Corporation, it follows that
the law that govern their relationship is the law of the place
where the employment was executed and her place of work or
assignment. On this premise, the Italian law allegedly provides
severance pay which was applied and extended to herein
complainant (Annex P, respondents position paper).
As can be gleaned from the foregoing, a further elucidation on
the matter would be an exercise in futility. Hence, this case
should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Assuming for the sake of argument that this Office has
jurisdiction over this case, still, this Office is inclined to rule in
favor of the respondent.
_______________
1

CA Rollo, p. 66.

520

520

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sim vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Complainant, as General Manager is an employee whom the

respondent company reposed its trust and confidence. In other
words, she held a position of trust. It is wellsettled doctrine that
the basic premise for dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence
is that the employee concerned holds a position of trust and
confidence. (National Sugar Refineries Corporation vs. NLRC,
286 SCRA 478.)
xxx
In this case, the respondent company had strong reason to
believe that 2the complainant was guilty of the offense charged
against her.

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission

(NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiters Decision
and
3
dismissed petitioners appeal for lack of merit.
Without filing a motion for reconsideration with the
NLRC, petitioner went to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 4
In a Resolution dated October 29, 2002, the CA
dismissed the petition due to petitioners5 nonfiling of a
motion for reconsideration with the NLRC.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was
nonetheless denied by the CA per Resolution dated
February 26, 2003.
Hence, the present recourse under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court.
Petitioner alleges that:
I. The Court of Appeals departed from the accepted
and usual concepts of remedial law when it ruled
that the petitioner should have first filed a Motion
for Reconsideration with the National Labor
Relations Commission.
_______________
2

Id., at pp. 6465.

Id., at p. 23.

Rendered by Associate Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero (now

retired), with Associate Justices Teodoro P. Regino (also retired) and

Mariano C. Del Castillo, concurring.

5

CA Rollo, p. 69.
521

VOL. 534, OCTOBER 2, 2007

521

Sim vs. National Labor Relations Commission

II. The National Labor Relations Commission decided

a question of jurisdiction heretofore not yet
determined by the Court and decided the same in a
manner not in accord with law when it ruled that it
had no jurisdiction over a labor dispute between a
Philippine corporation and its employee
which it
6
assigned to work for a foreign land.
The pivotal question that needs to be resolved is whether or
not a prior motion for reconsideration is indispensable for
the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court with the CA.
Under Rule 65, the remedy of filing a special civil action
for certiorari is available only when there is no appeal or
any plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary
7
course of law. A plain and adequate remedy is a motion
for reconsideration of the assailed order or resolution, the
filing of which is an indispensable8 condition to the filing of
a special civil action for certiorari. This
is to give the lower
9
court the opportunity to correct itself.
There are, of course, exceptions to the foregoing rule, to
wit:
(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the
court a quo has no jurisdiction
(b) where the questions raised in the certiorari
proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon
by the lower court, or are the same as those raised
and passed upon in the lower court
(c) where there is an urgent necessity for the
resolution of the question and any further delay
would prejudice the interests of the Government or
of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action
is perishable
_______________

Id., at p. 15.

RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, Section 1.

Cervantes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 166755, November 18, 2005,

475 SCRA 562, 569.

9

Abacan v. Northwestern University, Inc., G.R. No. 140777, April 8,

2005, 455 SCRA 136, 148.

522

522

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sim vs. National Labor Relations Commission

(d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for

reconsideration would be useless
(e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and
there is extreme urgency for relief
(f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of
arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by
the trial court is improbable
(g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a
nullity for lack of due process
(h) where the proceeding was ex parte or in which the
petitioner had no opportunity to object and
(i) where the issue raised
is one purely of law or public
10
interest is involved.
Petitioner, however, failed to qualify her case as among the
few exceptions. In fact, the Court notes that the petition
filed before the CA failed to allege any reason why a motion
for reconsideration was dispensed with by petitioner. It
was only in her motion for reconsideration of the CAs
resolution of dismissal and in the petition filed in this case
that petitioner justified her nonfiling of a motion for
reconsideration.
Petitioner argues that filing a motion for reconsideration
with the NLRC would be merely an exercise in futility and
useless. But it is not for petitioner to determine whether it
is so. As stressed in Cervantes v. Court of Appeals:
It must be emphasized that a writ of certiorari is a prerogative
writ, never demandable as a matter of right, never issued except
in the exercise of judicial discretion. Hence, he who seeks a writ of
certiorari must apply for it only in the manner and strictly in
accordance with the provisions of the law and the Rules.

Petitioner may not arrogate to himself the determination

of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or
not. To dispense with the requirement of filing a motion
for reconsideration, petitioner must show a concrete,
compelling, and valid reason
_______________
10

Abacan v. Northwestern University, Inc., id., at p. 149.

523

VOL. 534, OCTOBER 2, 2007

523

Sim vs. National Labor Relations Commission

for doing so, which petitioner failed to

do. Thus, the Court of
11
Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. (Emphasis supplied)

Petitioner also contends that the issue at bench is purely a

question of law, hence, an exception to the rule. A reading
of the petition filed with the CA shows otherwise. The
issues raised in this case are mixed questions of fact and
law. There is a question of fact when doubt or difference
arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts, and
there is a question of law where the doubt or difference
12
arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts.
Petitioner, aside from questioning the ruling of the
NLRC sustaining the Labor Arbiters view that it does not
have any jurisdiction over the case, also questions the
NLRCs ruling affirming the Labor Arbiters conclusion
that she was validly dismissed by respondent. The legality
of petitioners dismissal hinges on the question of whether
there was an employeremployee relationship, which was
denied by respondent and, if in the affirmative, whether
petitioner, indeed, committed a breach of trust and
confidence justifying her dismissal. These are mixed
questions of fact and law and, as such, do not fall within
the exception from the filing of a motion for
reconsideration.
Consequently, the CA was not in error when it
dismissed the petition. More so since petitioner failed to
show any error on the part of the Labor Arbiter and the
NLRC in ruling that she was dismissed for cause.
The rule is that the Court is bound by the findings of
facts of the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC, unless it is shown

that grave abuse of discretion or lack or excess of

jurisdiction has
_______________
11

Cervantes v. Court of Appeals, supra note 8, at p. 570.

12

Cano v. Galvante, 440 Phil. 821, 825826 392 SCRA 299, 302303

(2002).
524

524

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sim vs. National Labor Relations Commission
13

been committed by said quasijudicial bodies. The Court

will not deviate from said doctrine without any clear
showing that the findings of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed
by the NLRC, are bereft of sufficient substantiation.
Petitioner does not deny having withdrawn the amount
of P3,000,000.00 lire from the banks account. What
petitioner submits is that she used said amount for the
Radio Pilipinas sa Roma radio program of the company.
Respondent, however, countered that at the time she
withdrew said amount, the radio program was already off
the air. Respondent is a managerial employee. Thus, loss of
14
trust and confidence is a valid ground for her dismissal.
The mere existence of a basis for believing that a
managerial employee has breached the 15 trust of the
employer would suffice for his/her dismissal.
[w]hen an employee accepts a promotion to a managerial position
or to an office requiring full trust and confidence, she gives up
some of the rigid guaranties available to ordinary workers.
Infractions which if committed by others would be overlooked or
condoned or penalties mitigated may be visited with more severe
disciplinary action. A companys
resort to acts of selfdefense
16
would be more easily justified.

The Court notes, however, a palpable error in the Labor

Arbiters disposition of the case, which was affirmed by the
NLRC, with regard to the issue on jurisdiction. It was
wrong for the Labor Arbiter to rule that labor relations
system in 17the Philippines has no extraterritorial
jurisdiction.

_______________
13

Nueva Ecija Electric Cooperative II v. National Labor Relations

Commission, G.R. No. 157603, June 23, 2005, 461 SCRA 169, 182
14

Philippine Long Distance Company v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 143171,

September 21, 2004, 438 SCRA 555, 560.

15

Community Rural Bank of San Isidro (N.E.), Inc. v. Paez, G.R. No.

158707, November 27, 2006, 508 SCRA 245, 259.

16

Philippine Long Distance Company case, supra note 14, at p. 560.

17

CA Rollo, p. 64.
525

VOL. 534, OCTOBER 2, 2007

525

Sim vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Article 217 of the Labor Code provides for the jurisdiction

of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations
Commission, viz.:
ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission.
(a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code the Labor
Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of
the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in the
absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all
workers, whether agricultural or nonagricultural:
1. Unfair labor practice cases
2. Termination disputes
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases
that workers may file involving wage, rates of pay, hours
of work and other terms and conditions of employment
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of
damages arising from the employeremployee relations
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this
Code, including questions involving the legality of strikes
and lockouts and
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social
Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other
claims, arising from employeremployee relations,
including those of persons in domestic or household
service, involving an amount of exceeding five thousand
pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with

a claim for reinstatement.

(b) The commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction
over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters.

Moreover, Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, or the

18
Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995,
provides:
SECTION 10. Money Claims.Notwithstanding any provision of
law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and
exclusive
_______________
18

Effective July 15, 1995.

526

526

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sim vs. National Labor Relations Commission

jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days

after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an
employeremployee relationship or by virtue of any law or
contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment
including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of
damages.

Also, Section 62 of the Omnibus

Rules and Regulations
19
Implementing R.A. No. 8042 provides that the Labor
Arbiters of the NLRC shall have the original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide all claims arising out of
employeremployee relationship or by virtue of any law or
contract involving Filipino workers for overseas
deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary
and other forms of damages, subject to the rules and
procedures of the NLRC.
Under these provisions, it is clear that labor arbiters
have original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising
from employeremployee relations, including termination
disputes involving 20all workers, among whom are overseas
Filipino workers.
In Philippine National Bank v.
Cabansag, the Court pronounced:

x x x Whether employed locally or overseas, all Filipino

workers enjoy the protective mantle of Philippine labor
and social legislation, contract stipulations to the contrary
notwithstanding. This pronouncement is in keeping with the
basic public policy of the State to afford protection to labor,
promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities
regardless of sex, race or creed, and regulate the relations
between workers and employers. For the State assures the basic
rights of all workers to selforganization, collective bargaining,
security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work
[Article 3 of the Labor Code of the Philippines See also Section
18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII, 1987 Constitution]. This
ruling is likewise rendered imperative by Article 17 of the Civil
Code which states that laws which have for their object public
order, public policy and good customs shall not be
_______________
19

Published in the April 7, 1996 issue of the Manila Bulletin.

20

Philippine National Bank v. Cabansag, G.R. No. 157010, June 21, 2005, 460

SCRA 514, 526527.

527

VOL. 534, OCTOBER 2, 2007

527

Sim vs. National Labor Relations Commission

rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by

21
determination or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.
(Emphasis supplied)

In any event, since the CA did not commit any error in

dismissing the petition before it for failure to file a prior
motion for reconsideration with the NLRC, and considering
that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRCs factual findings as
regards the validity of petitioners dismissal are accorded
great weight and respect and even finality when the same
are supported by substantial evidence, the Court finds no
compelling reason to relax the rule on the filing of a motion
for reconsideration prior to the filing of a petition for
certiorari.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
YnaresSantiago (Chairperson), ChicoNazario,

Nachura and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Petition denied.
Notes.A
managerial
employee
commits
a
transgression that betrays the trust and confidence of his
employer when he reimburses his familys personal travel
expenses out of company funds. (Dela Cruz, Jr. vs. National
Labor Relations Commission, 418 SCRA 226 [2003])
The term trust and confidence is restricted to
managerial employees A breach is willful if it is done
intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable
excuse, as distinguished from an act done careless,
thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. (Fujitsu
Computer Products Corporation of the Philippines vs. Court
of Appeals, 454 SCRA 737 [2005])
o0o
_______________
21

Id., at pp. 528529.

528

Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.