Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

FRANKLIN G. FLORES and CA-G.R. SP N0. 174218

ROMEO C. REYES, JR.,
Members:
Petitioners,
LAMPAS PERALTA, F.,
Chairperson
-versus- PEREZ, P. A., and
LAUIGAN, R. R., JJ.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION (SIXTH
DIVISION) and SANDIGAN SHIP Promulgated:
SERVICES, INC., September 12, 2022
Respondents.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

RESOLUTION

LAMPAS PERALTA, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for certiorari filed under Rule 65,
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing public
respondent National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC's)
Decision dated June 27, 20221 in NLRC LAC No. 03-000872-22
(NLRC NCR Case No. 09-00793-21) which affirmed the labor
arbiter's Decision dated January 26, 2022 dismissing petitioners'
complaint for illegal dismissal and awarding them separation pay
and final pay.

The petition is fatally defective, as it is fraught with the following

infirmities:

(1) There is no showing that petitioner filed a motion for

reconsideration of the subject NLRC Decision dated June 27, 2022;

1 pp. 15-27, Rollo

CA-G.R. SP No. 174218
Flores, et. al. vs. NLRC, et. al.,
RESOLUTION page - 2 -
x---------------------------x

hence, petitioners' direct recourse to the Court through the present

special civil action action of certiorari, an extraordinary remedy, is not
warranted as petitioners failed to avail of a speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law. 2

(2) As noted by public respondent NLRC, petitioners' appeal

filed before it was not perfected at all, as their “Memorandum of
Appeal was not verified by Complainants-Appellants” (petitioners
herein) and consequently, “the assailed Decision of the labor arbiter
became final and executory on 22 February 2022.” 3

(3) The “Verification and Certification” on non-forum shopping

is not compliant with Section 4 (b) & (c), Rule 7, 2019 Amendments
to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring the affiant to further
attest that (i) the pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary
delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation, and (ii) the factual
allegations therein have evidentiary support after reasonable
opportunity for discovery.

(4) Copies of pertinent pleadings, documents and other

material portions of the records are not attached to the petition, such
as but not limited to the labor arbiter's Decision, position papers and
memorandum of appeal.4

(5) The petition raises purely factual issues concerning the

unanimous findings of the labor arbiter and public respondent NLRC
that petitioners were “legally dismissed due to redundancy.” 5 As
public respondent NLRC noted in its Decision dated June 27, 2022:

“We find the elements of grave abuse of discretion discussed

above to be patently missing in this case. The assailed Decision is
firmly grounded on established facts, applicable laws and existing

2 Section 1, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

3 p. 21, Ibid.
4 Section 2, Rule 42, Rules of Court
5 p. 15, Ibid.
CA-G.R. SP No. 174218
Flores, et. al. vs. NLRC, et. al.,
RESOLUTION page - 3 -
x---------------------------x

jurisprudence on the matter.”6

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed outright.

SO ORDERED.

FERNANDA LAMPAS PERALTA

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

PABLITO A. PEREZ RAYMOND REYNOLD R. LAUIGAN

Associate Justice Associate Justice

6 p. 24, Ibid.