G.R. No. 194176 -

Ruling

accordingly discharged from any liability. [14] The LA dismissed the petitioners' money claims for lack of factual basis. [15] The petitioners and TWMPC appealed to the NLRC. [16] In its Order dated February 22, 2006, the NLRC dismissed both appeals outright for failure to attach the requisite Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. The NLRC reasoned that appeal is a mere statutory privilege and the period and manner for its perfection are not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. [17] Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the foregoing order. They also submitted a Motion to Admit Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping pleading for a liberal application of procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice. [18] The NLRC denied reconsideration in its Resolution dated May 25, 2006. The February 22, 2006 NLRC Resolution became final and executory on July 10, 2006 and an entry of judgment was issued on August 10, 2006. [19] The petitioners persisted in their cause and elevated the matter to the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC. In its herein assailed Decision [20] dated March 25, 2010, the CA dismissed the petition upon finding that the petitioners failed to file the certificate of non-forum shopping within the reglementary period of filing a Memorandum of Appeal. Instead, they belatedly submitted the same in their motion for reconsideration of the NLRC resolution dismissing their appeal. The CA also ruled that the petitioners failed to cite any compelling reason which will warrant a relaxation of procedural rules. The CA stressed that the petitioners were not denied their right to appeal because it is actually a mere statutory privilege which must be perfected in the manner provided by law. The CA reiterated the NLRC's ruling that rules on perfection of appeal are not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well. [21] The petitioners moved for reconsideration [22] but their motion was denied in the CA Resolution [23] dated September 30, 2010. Hence, the present appeal arguing, in the main, that the CA erred in "strictly applying the requirement of certificate of non-forum shopping despite the presence of highly exceptional situation. [24] The Ruling of the Court The petition is denied. At the outset, it bears to emphasize that "the findings of the NLRC are generally binding and should be treated with finality. The CA only looks at the facts to determine if a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in appreciating the facts." [25] Hence, in ruling on the correctness of the CA's review of the NLRC decision, this Court is confined to a review of the case solely on pure questions of law. We are tasked to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented