MAJURINE L. MAURICIO VS NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

MAJURINE L. MAURICIO

VS

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
475 SCRA 323 (2005)

One of the inherent powers of courts which should apply in equal force to quasi-judicial bodies is to amend and control its processes so as to make them conformable to law and justice. This includes the right to reverse itself, especially when in its opinion it has committed an error or mistake in judgment and adherence to its decision would cause injustice.

Majurine L. Mauricio (Majurine) started working as an Administrative Assistant in the Legal Department of the Manila Banking Corporation as a probationary employee. As a pre-employment requirement, the bank directed the submission by Mauricio of some required documents. However, she failed to do so. She was advised that the processing of her regularization as employee would be held in abeyance. The bank gave her extension dates twice with information that her failure to do so would cause the termination of her employment. Despite the deadline given her, she still failed to comply with the requirements.

Mauricio, informed the bank that she could not secure a clearance from her previous employer, the Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation (MBLIC), a sister company of the bank, as she had a pending case with it. She requested that any action relative to her employment be held in abeyance as she was still following up the early resolution of the case. In response, the bank denied her request. Thus, she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unpaid salary, and moral and exemplary damages against the bank before the Labor Arbiter, but such was dismissed.

On Mauricio’s appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter (LA). On the bank’s Motion for Reconsideration, however, the NLRC, reinstated in toto the Decision of the LA. Mauricio thereupon challenged via Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the NLRC decision.

ISSUE
Whether or not NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it reversed its original Decision and reinstated in toto Decision of the Labor Arbiter

HELD
There is nothing ―radical and highly questionable‖ with the NLRC reversing its original decision if supported with substantial evidence. Respecting Mauricio’s contention that in its earlier Decision, the NLRC already passed upon the arguments raised by respondents in their Motion for Reconsideration before it, Mauricio herself provides the answer when she quotes in her present petition what she terms as ―the trenchant observation of the High Court‖.

In her petition, while Mauricio quotes at length the September 24, 2001 original decision of the NLRC, she fails to explain why the NLRC should not have reversed it and why the Court of Appeals should not have sustained the reversal. And what error of law should be reviewed by this Court, Mauricio likewise fails to point out.

One of the inherent powers of courts which should apply in equal force to quasi-judicial bodies is to amend and control its processes so as to make them conformable to law and justice. This includes the right to reverse itself, especially when in its opinion it has committed an error or mistake in judgment and adherence to its decision would cause injustice. This, the NLRC exercised which bore the imprimatur of the CA. Mauricio has, however, failed to advance any meritorious ground why the Court should disturb such exercise.

Share this:

Leave a Reply