, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. COMMS. LOURDES JAVIER, TITO GENILO AND ERNESTO VERCELES, JOURNAL EMPLOYEES UNION, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the petition is GRANTED . Respondent is ordered to reinstate the 29 dismissed employees to their previous positions without loss of seniority rights and payment of their full backwages from the time of their dismissal up to their actual reinstatement. Respondent is likewise ordered to pay the 29 and 50 employees, respectively, their rightful benefits under the CBA, less whatever amount they have already received. The records of this case are remanded to the NLRC for the computation of the monetary awards. SO ORDERED . [18] The Present Petition PJI, its President Bobby Dela Cruz, its Executive Vice-President Arnold Banares, and its Chief Legal Officer Ruby Ruiz Bruno, the petitioners, now come before this Court and submit that the CA erred as follows: I THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT ADOPTED THE RESOLUTION DATED 31 MAY 2001 IN CERT. CASE NO. 000181-00 AND APPLIED THE SAME TO THE INSTANT CASE DOCKETED AS CERT. CASE NO. 000229-02, DESPITE THE SAID RESOLUTION BEING ABANDONED AND ACADEMICALLY MOOTED BY THE RESOLUTION DATED 25 JULY 2001, WHICH APPROVED THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN CERT. CASE NO. 000181-00. IN FINE; THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS APPLIED TO THE INSTANT CASE THE LOGIC AND LAW OF AN ABANDONED RESOLUTION WHICH NEVER ATTAINED FINALITY. II THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT TRIED FACTS AND EVIDENCES WHICH WERE NOT PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED BY THE COURT A QUO. IN FINE, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS WENT BEYOND ITS MANDATE AND AUTHORITY WHEN IT BECAME A TRIER OF FACTS. III THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT GRANTED TO AWARD 50 OTHER PERSONS WHO ARE NOT PARTIES OR PRIVIES TO THE INSTANT CASE. IN FINE, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRANTED AWARDS TO THOSE WITH WHOM IT NEVER HAD JURISDICTION. [19] 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." [20] 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. [21] 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. [22] 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 . [23] The primary issue before the Court is whether an NLRC Resolution, which includes a pronouncement that th