View full case

NYK INTERNATIONAL KNITWEAR CORPORATION PHILIPPINES v. NLRC

FACTS:

Petitioners NYK International Knitwear Corporation Philippines (NYK) and Cathy Ng filed a petition for certiorari against the resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) which dismissed their petition for non-compliance with the rules.

The case arose from an illegal dismissal complaint filed by respondent Virginia Publico against NYK, where she worked as a sewer. Publico was hired by NYK on February 8, 1995, and was paid on a piece-rate basis. She worked from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 midnight and earned an average of P185.00 daily.

On May 7, 1997, Publico requested permission to leave work early due to her illness, but it was denied. Nevertheless, she went home and informed her employer the next day that she was still recovering. When Publico reported for work on May 9, 1997, she was initially prevented from entering the NYK premises by a security guard. After persisting to complete her unfinished work, she was eventually allowed inside. She requested to see the owner, Stephen Ng, but her request was declined and she was told to return the following day.

Publico returned on May 10 and, after waiting for several hours, finally had the chance to see Stephen Ng. It was during this meeting that she was informed of her dismissal for refusing to render overtime service. As a result, Publico filed an illegal dismissal complaint against NYK and Cathy Ng.

The Labor Arbiter found Publico's dismissal to be illegal and ordered her reinstatement with full backwages. This decision was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). NYK appealed the NLRC's decision to the CA through a special civil action for certiorari. However, the CA dismissed their petition for non-compliance with the rules. NYK's motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, NYK elevated the case to the Supreme Court through a petition for review, raising issues regarding the CA's dismissal of their petition and the legality of Publico's dismissal.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals should have given due course to the petition for certiorari.

  2. Whether or not there exists evidence on record to warrant the ruling that complainant was illegally dismissed, and corollary thereto, whether or not there is legal justification to award backwages and order reinstatement.

  3. Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent NLRC so as to justify a reversal of its resolutions dated May 17, 2000 and June 30, 2000.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in dismissing CA-G.R. SP No. 60542 on purely technical grounds, i.e., that the attached copy of the NLRC decision is a mere photocopy of the original decision.

  2. There is evidence on record to warrant the ruling that complainant was illegally dismissed. There is legal justification to award backwages and order reinstatement.

  3. There was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent NLRC to justify a reversal of its resolutions dated May 17, 2000 and June 30, 2000.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In petitions for certiorari, compliance with the procedural requirements set forth in Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is necessary. Failure to comply with the said requirements may result in the outright dismissal of the petition.

  • In determining whether an employee was illegally dismissed, the existence of just cause is necessary. Failure to render overtime work, without justifiable reason, may constitute just cause for dismissal.

  • When there is substantial evidence supporting the decision of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, the Court of Appeals should not interfere and reverse the findings of fact made by the labor tribunals.