Professional Documents
Culture Documents
St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC
St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME295
494
EN BANC.
495
495
1/19
12/5/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME295
procedural aspect.
Same Same Same Jurisdiction Statutes The excepting
clause provided for in paragraph (3), Section 9 of B.P. No. 129, as
amended by R.A. No. 7902, contradicts what has been ruled and
said all along that appeal does not lie from decisions of the NLRC.
It will, however, be noted that paragraph (3), Section 9 of B.P.
No. 129 now grants exclusive appellate jurisdiction to the Court of
Appeals over all final adjudications of the Regional Trial Courts
and the quasijudicial agencies generally or specifically referred to
therein except, among others, those falling within the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with x x x the
Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442,
as amended, x x x. This would necessarily contradict what has
been ruled and said all along that appeal does not lie from
decisions of the NLRC. Yet, under such excepting clause literally
construed, the appeal from the NLRC cannot be brought to the
Court of Appeals, but to this Court by necessary implication.
Same Same Same Same There are no cases in the Labor
Code the decisions, resolutions, orders or awards wherein are
within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or of any
other court for that matter.The same exceptive clause further
confuses the situation by declaring that the Court of Appeals has
no appellate jurisdiction over decisions falling within the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with
the Constitution, the provisions of B.P. No. 129, and those
specified cases in Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. These
cases can, of course, be properly excluded from the exclusive
appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. However, because
of the aforementioned amendment by transposition, also
supposedly excluded are cases falling within the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Labor
Code. This is illogical and impracticable, and Congress could not
have intended that procedural gaffe, since there are no cases in
the Labor Code the decisions, resolutions, orders or awards
wherein are within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court or of any other court for that matter.
496
496
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001516de3fc8b901fc673003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
2/19
12/5/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME295
3/19
12/5/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME295
497
497
4/19
12/5/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME295
498
5/19
12/5/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME295
_______________
1
Rollo, 17.
Ibid., 1819.
Ibid., 19.
499
499
6/19
12/5/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME295
______________
4
Ibid., 16.
Ibid., 21.
Ibid., 2324.
Ibid., 6.
Article 2.
Article 213.
500
500
7/19
12/5/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME295
_______________
10
While Art. 223 bears the epigraph of Appeal, it actually refers only
to decisions, awards, or orders of the labor arbiter which shall be final and
executory unless appealed to the NLRC by any or both parties within ten
calendar days from receipt thereof.
11
39195, May 15, 1975, 64 SCRA 56 Scott vs. Inciong, et al., G.R. No. L
38868, December 29, 1975, 68 SCRA 473 Bordeos, et al. vs. NLRC, et al.,
G.R. Nos. 11531423, September 26, 1996, 262 SCRA 424.
501
501
8/19
12/5/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME295
Zapata vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 77827, July 5, 1989, 175 SCRA 56.
13
See, for instance, Pure Foods Corporation vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 78591,
Mantrade, etc. vs. Bacungan, et al., G.R. No. L48437, September 30, 1986,
502
502
9/19
12/5/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME295
16
503
10/19
12/5/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME295
504
11/19
12/5/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME295
The different modes of appeal, that is, by writ of error (Rule 41),
petition for review (Rules 42 and 43), and petition for review on certiorari
(Rule 45) obviously cannot be availed of because there is no provision for
appellate review of NLRC decisions in P.D. No. 442, as amended.
505
505
12/19
12/5/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME295
An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, Amending for the
36.
506
506
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001516de3fc8b901fc673003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
13/19
12/5/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME295
We used to have 500,000 cases pending all over the land, Mr.
President. It has been cut down to 300,000 cases some five years
ago. I understand we are now back to 400,000 cases. Unless we
distribute the work of the appellate courts, we shall continue to
mount and add to the number of cases pending.
In view of the foregoing, Mr. President, and by virtue of all the
reasons we have submitted, the Committee on Justice and
Human Rights requests the support and collegial approval of our
Chamber.
xxx
507
14/19
12/5/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME295
TSP, id., id., 1921 Record of the Senate, Vol. V, No. 63, pp. 180181.
22
508
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001516de3fc8b901fc673003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
15/19
12/5/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME295
The Regional Trial Court also shares that concurrent jurisdiction but
that cannot be considered with regard to the NLRC since they are of the
same rank.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001516de3fc8b901fc673003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
16/19
12/5/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME295
24
509
17/19
12/5/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME295
_______________
25
G.R. Nos. 9928990, January 27, 1993, 217 SCRA 633. See also Tano, et al.
vs. Socrates, et al., G.R. No. 110249, August 21, 1997, 278 SCRA 155.
510
510
18/19
12/5/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME295
511
Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001516de3fc8b901fc673003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
19/19