LABOR LAW Genpact Services, Inc. vs. SANTOSFALCESO ET AL G.R. No. 227695, July 31, 2017

Genpact Services, Inc. vs. SANTOSFALCESO ET AL G.R. No. 227695, July 31, 2017

 Ponente: PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Doctrine: The remedy of filing a motion for reconsideration may be availed of once by each party. Where only respondents had filed a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC, petitioners also had an opportunity to file such motion in this case, should they wish to do so.

FACTS: Genpact hired Santos-Falceso et al. to service its Allstate account. However, Allstate ended its account with Genpact resulting in respondents being placed on floating status, and eventually, terminated from service. Respondents to file a complaint before the NLRC for illegal dismissal.

Genpact justified the termination on the ground of cessation of Allstate's account. That they provide respondents with the option to either resign or be separated. They were properly given separation pay, as well as unpaid allowances and 13th month pay, thus, rendering the latter's monetary claims bereft of merit.

LA found the termination was due to the untimely cessation of the operations of Allstate. Genpact tried to remedy the situation but such efforts proved futile as they were hired specifically to match the needs of Allstate. Payment of separation pay was a sign of good faith. Thus, there was an authorized cause in the termination, and that Gen pact complied with DOLE's requirements. NLRC partly granted respondents and increased respondents' entitlement to separation pay. CA dismissed purely on procedural grounds. Petitioners' failure to file a MR before the NLRC prior to elevating the case to the CA is a fatal infirmity which rendered their petition for certiorari dismissible.

ISSUE: WON the CA correctly dismissed outright the certiorari petition filed by petitioners before it on procedural grounds.

HELD: YES. The general rule under Rule 65 is that a motion for reconsideration must first be filed with the lower court prior to resorting to certiorari, since a motion for reconsideration may still be considered. Exceptions: (d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; Exceptions in items d and e are present in this case.

The dispositive portion of the NLRC which partially granted respondents' motion explicitly warns the litigating parties that the NLRC shall no longer entertain any further motions for reconsideration. This gave petitioners the impression that moving for reconsideration before the NLRC would only be an exercise in futility in light of the tribunal's aforesaid warning.

Under Sec. 15, Rule VII of NLRC Rules of Procedure provides that the remedy of filing a motion for reconsideration may be availed of once by each party. In this case, only respondents had filed a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC. Applying the foregoing provision, petitioners also had an opportunity to file such motion in this case, should they wish to do so. However, the tenor of such warning effectively deprived petitioners of such opportunity, thus, constituting a violation of their right to due process.

Petitioners were completely justified in pursuing a direct recourse to the CA through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Decision of CA is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The instant case is REMANDED to the CA for a resolution on the merits.