G.R. No. 168120 - MANSION PRINTING CENTER AND CLEMENT CHENG, VS. DIOSDADO BITARA, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding no cogent reason to modify, alter, much less reverse the decision appealed from, the same is AFFIRMED en toto and the instant appeal DISMISSED for lack of merit. [26] It likewise denied respondents Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution on 21 February 2002. [27] Before the Court of Appeals, respondent sought the annulment of the Commissions Resolution dated 29 June 2001 and Order dated 21 February 2002 on the ground that they were rendered with grave abuse of discretion and/or without or in excess of jurisdiction. [28] The Court of Appeals found for the respondent and reversed the findings of the Commission. The dispositive portion of its Decision dated 18 March 2004 reads: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. In lieu of the assailed Resolution and Order of the respondent NLRC, a NEW DECISION is hereby rendered declaring petitioner Diosdado Bitara, Jr. to have been Illegally Dismissed and, thus, entitled to the following: Reinstatement or if no longer feasible, Separation Pay to be computed from the commencement of his employment in August 1988 up to the time of his termination on April 1, 2000, including his imputed service from April 1, 2000 until the finality of this decision, based on the salary rate prevailing at the said finality; Backwages , inclusive of allowances and other benefits, computed from April 1, 2000 up to the finality of this decision, without qualification or deduction; and 5-day Service Incentive Leave Pay for every year of service from the commencement of his employment in August 1988 up to its termination on April 1, 2000. [29] On 10 May 2005, the Court of Appeals denied respondents Motion for Reconsideration of the decision for lack of merit. [30] Hence, the instant petition. [31] Issue The core issue in this case is whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly found that the Commission acted without and/or in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction (a) in upholding the termination of respondents employment and (b) in affirming the denial of his claim for non-payment of holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, moral and exemplary damages. Our Ruling The petition is meritorious. The special civil action for certiorari seeks to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. [32] xxx The raison detre for the rule is when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed . If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. xxx Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. xxx [33] xxx [J]udicial review does not go as far as to evaluate the sufficiency