G.R. No. 196539 - MARIETTA N. PORTILLO, VS. RUDOLF LIETZ, INC., RUDOLF LIETZ AND COURT OF APPEALS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents Rudolf Lietz, Inc. to pay complainant Marietta N. Portillo the amount of Php110,662.16, representing her salary and commissions, including 13 th month pay. [8] On appeal by respondents, the NLRC, through its Second Division, affirmed the ruling of Labor Arbiter Daniel J. Cajilig. On motion for reconsideration, the NLRC stood pat on its ruling. Expectedly, respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion in the labor tribunals rulings. As earlier adverted to, the appellate court initially affirmed the labor tribunals: WHEREFORE , considering the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us DENYING the petition filed in this case. The Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Second Division, in the labor case docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-09-08113-2005 [NLRC LAC No. 07-001965-07(5)] is hereby AFFIRMED . [9] The disposition was disturbed. The Court of Appeals, on motion for reconsideration, modified its previous decision, thus: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, we hereby MODIFY the decision promulgated on March 31, 2009 in that, while we uphold the monetary award in favor of the [petitioner] in the aggregate sum of P110,662.16 representing the unpaid salary, commission and 13 th month pay due to her, we hereby allow legal compensation or set-off of such award of monetary claims by her liability to [respondents] for liquidated damages arising from her violation of the Goodwill Clause in her employment contract with them. [10] Portillos motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari listing the following acts as grave abuse of discretion of the Court of Appeals: THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY EVADING TO RECOGNIZE (sic) THAT THE RESPONDENTS EARLIER PETITION IS FATALLY DEFECTIVE[;] THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY OVERSTEPPING THE BOUNDS OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION[;] THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY MODIFYING ITS PREVIOUS DECISION BASED ON AN ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED ONLY ON THE FIRST INSTANCE AS AN APPEAL BUT WAS NEVER AT THE TRIAL COURT AMOUNTING TO DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS[;] THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY EVADING THE POSITIVE DUTY TO UPHOLD THE RELEVANT LAWS[.] [11] Simply, the issue is whether Portillos money claims for unpaid salaries may be offset against respondents claim for liquidated damages. Before anything else, we address the procedural error committed by Portillo, i.e. , filing a petition for certiorari , a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, instead of a petition for review on certiorari, a mode of appeal, under Rule 45 thereof. On this score alone, the petition should have been dismissed outright. Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that a party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judg