Rogelio Baronda
Rogelio Baronda
Rogelio Baronda
CA treated HIDECO's petition for certiorari as a petition for review brought Upon motion of any interested party, the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of
under Rule 43, and brushed aside the matters raised by the petitioner. petition Voluntary Arbitrators or the Labor Arbiter in the region where the movant
is hereby GRANTED. resides, in case of the absence or incapacity of the Voluntary Arbitrator or
panel of Voluntary Arbitrators for any reason, may issue a writ of execution
requiring either the sheriff of the Commission or regular courts or any public
official whom the parties may designate in the submission agreement to II. Voluntary Arbitrator's order of reinstatement of the petitioner was
execute the final decision, order or award. immediately executory
HIDECO filed the petition for certiorari, not a petition for review under Rule 43, Although the timely filing of a motion for reconsideration or of an appeal
and the CA liberally treated the petition for certiorari as a petition for review forestalls the finality of the decision or award of the Voluntary Arbitrator,33 the
under Rule 43. We hold that such treatment by the CA was procedurally reinstatement aspect of the Voluntary Arbitrator's decision or award remains
unwarranted. executory regardless of the filing of such motion for reconsideration or appeal.
certiorari, as an extraordinary remedy, was available only when there was no The immediate reinstatement of the employee pending the appeal has been
appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of introduced by Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6715, which amended Article
law. The justification for HIDECO's resort to the extraordinary equitable 223 of the Labor Code, “In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter
remedy of certiorari did not exist due to the availability of appeal, or other reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, in so far as the reinstatement
ordinary remedies in law to which HIDECO as the aggrieved party could aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, even pending appeal.”
resort.
The employee shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms
Although it is true that certiorari cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal, and and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option
that either remedy was not an alternative of the other, we have at times of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the
permitted the resort to certiorari despite the availability of appeal, or of any employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement provided herein.
plain speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law in
exceptional situations, such as: (1) when the remedy of certiorari is necessary
to prevent irreparable damages and injury to a party; (2) where the trial judge
capriciously and whimsically exercised his judgment; (3) where there may be
danger of a failure of justice; (4) where appeal would be slow, inadequate and
insufficient; (5) where the issue raised is one purely of law; (6) where public
interest is involved; and (7) in case of urgency.
HIDECO did not establish that its case came within any of the aforestated
exceptional situations.
Whenever appeal is belatedly resorted to, therefore, the litigant forfeits the
right to appeal, and the higher court ipso facto loses the authority to review,
reverse, modify or otherwise alter the judgment. The loss of such authority is
jurisdictional, and renders the adverse judgment both final and immutable.