Narzoles VS. NLRC
PNOC
Facts:
- Labor Arbiter dismissing their complaint for illegal
dismissal, PETITIONER EMPLOYEE appealed to the
NLRC, who modified the decision of Labor Arbiter and
ordered res, to reinstate petitioners “BUT WITHOUT
BACKWAGES”
- Petitioners received the NLRC decision on July 23 1998
and filed a motion for recon on Aug 3 1998 (Aug 2 last
filling date)
- Oct 19 1998 pet received a copy of NLRC res denying
their motion for recon.
-Pet filed a petition for CERTIOARARI in this court Dec
17 1988 but CA denied due to late filling where the CA
apparently, applied Sec 4 Rule 65 amended by Circular
No. 39-30 ( reglementary period to file petition for
certiorari is 60 days )
-SC dismiss the petition for having been filed beyond
reglementary period
ISSUE: WON the petitioner can claim the exception to the
retroactive application of Circular No. 39-38?
Ruling:
Yes. Court deemed it wise to revert to the old rule
allowing a part a fresh 60 days period of notice of the
denial of motion for recon to file a petition for ceritioari.
The resolution further amending Sec 4 Rule 65 can only
be described as curative in nation and the principles
governing curative statutes are applicable. The filling of
the petition for ceritioari in the court on Dec 17 1988 is
deemed to be timely and the same having been made
within the 60 days period provided under curative
Resolution. It concludes bearing in mind that the
substantive aspects of the case involves rights and
benefits, even livelihood of petitioner – employees. The
court resolved to give due course to and grant the
petition. Case hereby remanded to the CA for further
proceedings.
(Curative Statutes, Retroactivity, Art 4)
Nerwin V.
Facts:
- In 1999, National Electrification Administration (NEA)
published an invitation to pre-qualify and to bid for a
contract known as IPB No. 80 for the supply and delivery
of about 60,000 pieces of wood poles and 20,000 of
cross-arms.
- Nerwin was one of the bidders, the contract was
awarded to him being the lowest bidder.
- However, NEA’s board of directors passed a resolution
reducing by 50% the material requirements for IPB 80 to
which Nerwin protested.
- A losing bidder, Tri State and Pacific Synergy filed a
complaint alleging the documents Nerwin submitted
during the pre-qualification bid were falsified
-. Finding a way to nullify the bid, NEA sought the opinion
of Gov’t Corporate Counsel who upheld the eligibility of
Nerwin.
- NEA allegedly held negotiations with other bidders for
IPB 80 contract. As a result, Nerwin filed a complaint with
prayer of injunction which was grabted by RTC Manila.
- PNOC – Energy Dev’t Corp issued an invitation to pre-
qualify and bid for O-ILAW project. Nerwin filed a civil
action in RTC alleging that it was an attempt to subject
portions of IPB 80 to another bidding.
- He prayed for TRO to enjoin respondents to the
proposed bidding. Respondents averred that this is in
violation of a rule that government infrastructure are not
subject to TROs. RTC granted TRO nevertheless.
-CA ruled in favor of respondents. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: W/N CA erred in dismissing the case pursuant to
RA 8975 which prohibits issuance of TRO except SC to
gov’t projects
Ruling :
In its decision of October 22, 2004, the CA explained why
it annulled and set aside the assailed orders of the RTC
issued on July 20, 2003 and December 29, 2003, and
why it altogether dismissed Civil Case No. 03106921, as
follows:
 a. It is beyond dispute that the crux of the instant
case is the propriety of respondent Judge’s issuance of a
preliminary injunction, or the earlier TRO, for that matter.
b. Respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion
in entertaining an application for TRO/preliminary
injunction, and worse, in issuing a preliminary injunction
through the assailed order enjoining petitioners’ sought
bidding for its O-ILAW Project. The same is a palpable
violation of RA 8975 which was approved on November
7, 2000, thus, already existing at the time respondent
Judge issued the assailed Orders dated July 20 and
December 29, 2003.
2. The said proscription is not entirely new. RA
8975 merely supersedes PD 1818 which earlier
underscored the prohibition to courts from issuing
restraining orders or preliminary injunctions in cases
involving infrastructure or National Resources
Development projects of, and public utilities operated by,
the government. This law was, in fact, earlier upheld to
have such a mandatory nature by the Supreme Court in
an administrative case against a Judge.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the
Court of Appeals; and ORDERS petitioner to pay the
costs of suit.
DM CONSUNJI, INC V CA AND MARIA JUEGO
FACTS:
- On Nov. 2, 1990, Jose Juego, a construction worker of
D.M. Consunji, Inc. fell 14 floors from the Renaissance
Tower, Pasig City to his death. On May 9, 1991
- Jose Juego´s widow, filed in the RTC of Pasig a
complainant for damages against the deceased´s
employer,
- D.M. Consunji, Inc. The employer raised, among other
defenses, the widow´s prior availment of the benefits from
the State Insurance Fund.
- The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the widow
Maria Juego, ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff.
- On appeal by D.M. Consunji, the CA affirmed the
decision of the RTC in toto. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether the waiver accomplished by the private
respondent, (Maria), is valid?
Ruling: The CA held that:
- Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known
right. It requires a knowledge of facts basic to the
exercise of the right waived, including its con sequences.
Where one lacks knowledge of a right, there is no basis
upon which waiver of it can rest. Ignorance of a material
fact negates waiver, and waiver cannot be established by
a consent given under a mistake or misapprehension of
fact .
- In the present case, the CA further held that private
respondent was ignorant of the facts and her rights and it
is wrong for petitioner to burden private respondent with
raising waiver as an issue. Moreover, the negligence of
petitioners employees, served as a basis for nullifying the
waiver, wherein private respondent purportedly learned
only after the prosecutor issued a resolution stat ing that
there may be civil liability.