G.R. No. 170904 - BANI RURAL BANK, INC., ENOC THEATER I AND II AND/OR RAFAEL DE GUZMAN, VS. TERESA DE GUZMAN, EDGAR C. TAN AND TERESA G. TAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Order of Labor Arbiter Rolando D. Gambito dated July 12, 2000 is SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, judgment is hereby rendered by ordering respondents to pay complainants backwages up to January 29, 1999 as above discussed. [13] The NLRC emphasized that the issue relating to the computation of the respondents backwages had been settled in its July 31, 1998 decision. In a resolution dated January 23, 2002, the NLRC denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners. The petitioners disagreed with the NLRCs ruling and filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, raising the following issues: (A) THE COMMISSION ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT REVERSED AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LABOR ARBITER ROLANDO D. GAMBITO DATED JULY 12, 2000 AND ORDERED THE COMPUTATION OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS BACKWAGES TO COVER THE PERIOD AFTER AUGUST 25, 1995, OR UNTIL JANUARY 29, 1999, THE DATE OF FINALITY OF THE SECOND RESOLUTION OF THE COMMISSION. (B) THE COMMISSION ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION FOR DENYING PETITIONERS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. [14] The CA Rulings The CA found the petition to be without merit. It held that certiorari was not the proper remedy since no error of jurisdiction was raised or no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the NLRC. The CA stated that: The extraordinary remedy of certiorari is proper if the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in law. When a court, tribunal or officer has jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter of dispute, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is an exercise of that jurisdiction. Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise of said jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment. Under prevailing procedural rules and jurisprudence, errors of judgment are not proper subjects of a special civil action for certiorari . [15] Thus, the CA echoed the NLRCs conclusions: As explained in the assailed Decision, what is controlling for purposes of the backwages is the NLRCs Resolution dated 17 March 1995 which decreed that private respondents are entitled to backwages from the time of their dismissal (constructive) until their actual reinstatement; and considering that the award of reinstatement was set aside by the NLRC in its final and executory Decision dated 31 July 1998 which ordered the payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement to be computed up to the finality on 29 January 1999 of said Decision dated 31 July 1998, then the computation of the backwages should also end on said date, which is 29 January 1999. [16] Citing the case of Chronicle Securities Corp. v. NLRC , [17] the CA held that backwages are granted to an employee or worker who had been ille