G.R. No. 200986 - STEELWELD CONSTRUCTION/JOVEN STA. ANA AND JOSEPHINE STA. ANA, VS. SERAFIN H. ECHANO, RENATO L. SALAZAR, AND ROBERTO E. COPILLO.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the instant appeal of complainants Echano, Copillo, and Salazar is PARTIALLY GRANTED and the appealed decision of the Labor Arbiter is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as follows: 1. Declaring complainants Serafin Echano, Roberto Copillo, and Renato Salazar as regular employees of respondent STEELWELD Construction; 2. Declaring complainants Serafin Echano, Roberto Copillo, and Renato Salazar to have been illegally dismissed from their employment; 3. Directing respondent STEELWELD CONSTRUCTION to reinstate complainants Serafin Echano, Roberto Copillo, and Renato Salazar to their previous post and to pay their full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits, computed from the date of their illegal dismissal on 13 November 2009, December 12, 2009, and December 4, 2009, respectively, until the finality of the decision; 4. Directing respondent STEELWELD CONSTRUCTION to pay complainants Serafin Echano, Roberto Copillo, and Renato Salazar their 13 th month [pay] for the period of 16 February 2007 up to the date of their termination from the service on 13 November 2009, 12 December 2009, and 4 December 2009, respectively. The computation made by the Computation and Examination Unit of the Commission shall form an integral part of this Decision. SO ORDERED . [23] Without filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioners went straight to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari . They manifested that it was the negligence of their former lawyer which prevented them from seeking a reconsideration of the assailed resolution from the NLRC. [24] The Ruling of the Court of Appeals Under Resolution [25] dated November 29, 2011, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition outright for petitioners' failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the questioned resolution before the NLRC. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied through Resolution [26] dated March 8, 2012. The Present Petition Petitioners now ask for affirmative relief against the dispositions of the Court of Appeals, claiming that the same deprived them of their right to due process and ignored the compelling reason that caused them not to file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC Resolution dated August 10, 2011. They also ask that respondent employees be declared as project employees whose services were validly terminated. [27] In their Comment, [28] respondents reiterate their submissions below against petitioners' plea for the reinstatement of their petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Petitioners' Reply [29] essentially repeats the same arguments presented in the petition. Ruling A motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non to the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is an extraordinary remedy which can only be availed of when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, or adequate remedy available in the ordinary course