G.R. NO. 154463 - CEBU METAL CORPORATION, VS. GREGORIO ROBERT SALILING, ELIAS BOLIDO, MANUEL ALQUIZA, AND BENJIE AMPARADO. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the PETITION HAVING MERIT is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE. RESULTANTLY, the challenged decision of Public Respondent National Labor Relations Commission is hereby ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE LABOR ARBITER IN RAB-CASE No. 06-01-10019-97 REINSTATED. No costs. SO ORDERED. The Issues Its Motion for Reconsideration having been denied [14] , petitioner company now comes to this Court imputing the following errors on the Court of Appeals: I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION FOURTH DIVISION, CEBU CITY HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DISMISS PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S CLAIMS FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL AND OTHER MONEY CLAIMS; II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION FOURTH DIVISION, CEBU CITY HAD NO AUTHORITY TO REVERSE THE LABOR ARBITER'S DECISION; and III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN CA G.R. SP. NO. 66480 AND IN ANNULING (sic) THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. In essence, the issue for resolution in the case at bar is whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that the NLRC had no authority to adjudicate on an issue not properly raised in petitioner company's Memorandum on Appeal. Petitioner company posits that contrary to the argument of the appellate court, the main or primary reason for the reversal of the Labor Arbiter's decision was the finding that respondent complainants could not be regarded, based on the facts of the case and the evidence presented, as regular employees of petitioner company. Conversely, respondent complainants allege that an appellate court has no power to resolve an unassigned error that does not affect the court's jurisdiction or is an error that is neither plain nor clerical. Likewise, they contend that "there is nothing to show that petitioner company made an issue of the Labor Arbiter's action in ruling on a cause of action not specifically stated in the complaint." The Court's Ruling We find merit in the petition. It was plain error for the Court of Appeals to annul and set aside the decision of the NLRC on the lone reason that the latter "dismissed Petitioner's appeal on the basis of an issue not raised by Private Respondent in its appeal x x x." [15] A painstaking review of the decision of the NLRC will readily reveal that the Commission's finding that respondent complainants were not regular employees was the raison d'être for the subsequent turnaround of the state of affairs. What the NLRC made use of to reverse the Labor Arbiter's decision was precisely the conclusion of the latter that respondent complainants were regular employees of petitioner company. According to the Commission, such conclusion was predicated merely on the consideration that respondent complainants were performing activities necessary and desirable to the business or trade of their employer. Based on the facts of the case and