GR 111897; (January, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 111897 . January 27, 1997.
GONPU SERVICES CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, OSCAR AGONOY and MANUEL FREGILLANA, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents Oscar Agonoy and Manuel Fregillana were employees of petitioner Gonpu Services Corporation and were elected president and director, respectively, of a newly formed union. On June 15, 1989, they were informed of their transfer to an assignment in Cagayan de Oro City. They sought reconsideration, citing the upcoming certification election and, for Fregillana, family dislocation. For failing to comply with the transfer order, they were terminated for insubordination.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed their complaint, upholding management’s prerogative to transfer employees. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The NLRC declared the dismissal illegal, ordered reinstatement with backwages, and found the transfer to be an act of unfair labor practice aimed at undermining the union. Petitioner filed this certiorari petition directly with the Supreme Court without first filing a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should entertain the petition for certiorari despite the petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC, and whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in finding the dismissal illegal.
RULING
The petition is dismissed. Procedurally, the failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC is fatal. A motion for reconsideration is an indispensable prerequisite for a certiorari petition under Rule 65, as it affords the tribunal an opportunity to correct its own errors and provides an expeditious means to resolve disputes. The petitioner’s unilateral claim that such a motion was unnecessary is untenable. Since an adequate remedy was available but not availed of, the certiorari proceeding cannot prosper.
On the merits, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC’s ruling. While management has the prerogative to transfer employees, this right is not absolute. The NLRC correctly found that the transfer of the union’s president and director to a distant location at the height of a certification election lacked a legitimate business justification. The circumstances strongly indicated an attempt to stifle union activity, constituting unfair labor practice. The burden was on the employer to prove a valid dismissal, which it failed to do. The NLRC’s decision was thus affirmed.