Pascual Sr. V Caniogan Credit

CELSO F. PASCUAL, SR. AND SERAFIN TERENCIO vs.
CANIOGAN CREDIT AND

DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN OF THE
BOARD, JOSE ANTONIO R. LEE, ATTY. VENANCIO C. REYES, JR., AND NESTOR
P. TINIO
[ G.R. No. 172980, July 22, 2015 ]
The general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is indispensable before resort
to the special civil action for certiorari is made.
FACTS:
Petitioners Celso F. Pascual, Sr. (Pascual) and Serafin Terencio (Terencio)

were appointed by the former Board of Directors of Caniogan Credit and Development
Cooperative (CCDC) to act as the cooperative's General Manager and Collection
Manager, respectively, from start of operations until they reach the compulsory age of
retirement of 65. Despite their retirement they continued to serve.
The Board of Directors of CCDC passed two resolutions terminating Pascual's

and Terencio's services. Pascual and Terencio refused to vacate their positions.
CCDC and Atty. Venancio Reyes, Jr. (newly appointed General Manager) filed a
Complaint for Injunction with prayer for issuance of writ of preliminary injunction and/or
temporary restraining order before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan.
The RTC issued a temporary restraining order enjoining Pascual and Terencio
for a period of 20 days from performing the functions of their offices.
Pascual and Terencio filed a Motion to Dismiss. They questioned the RTC's
jurisdiction because the case allegedly involves a labor dispute in the guise of an
injunction.
RTC: denied the Motion to Dismiss for lack of merit because the case involves an intra-
cooperative dispute.
Pascual and Terencio challenged the order before the Court of Appeals through
a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for an issuance of a temporary restraining order
and/or writ of preliminary injunction and lifting of the temporary restraining order issued
against them.
CA: petition is dismissed, held that it was prematurely filed.
ISSUES:
1) Whether the CA gravely erred in dismissing outright the Petition for Certiorari.
2) Whether the case is one of illegal dismissal of an employee which is subject to the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter or of the National Labor Relations
Commission.
RULING:
1) NO. The CA correctly dismissed petitioners' Rule 65 Petition.
The general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is indispensable before

resort to the special civil action for certiorari is made. This is to afford the court or
tribunal the opportunity to correct its error, if any. An omission to comply with this
procedural requirement justifies a denial of the writ of certiorari applied for. We find no
exceptional circumstance to justify petitioners' omission to file a motion for
reconsideration. There is no "extreme necessity and urgency" to excuse their direct
resort to a certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
However, we disagree with the CA's observation that prior recourse to the modes
of settlement should have been made before seeking judicial relief. It is clear from the
Complaint that the dispute was, indeed, referred to the Regional Office of the
Cooperative Development Authority for mediation and arbitration. Despite its earnest
efforts, no settlement was reached between the parties, prompting the Authority to issue
a certificate of non-resolution.
2) NO. The case involves an intra-cooperative dispute which falls within the jurisdiction
of the regular courts. There is evidently no employment relationship between the
parties.
An office is created by the charter of the corporation and the officer is elected by
the directors or stockholders. On the other hand, an employee usually occupies no
office and generally is employed not by action of the directors or stockholders but by the
managing officer of the corporation who also determines the compensation to be paid to
such employee. (Tabang v. NLRC)
Here, petitioners were officers of respondent CCDC. They were appointed

directly by the former Board of Directors according to the by-laws of respondent CCDC,
and their salaries were likewise set by the same Board. Petitioners do not refute this
fact. Their termination or removal is clearly an intra-cooperative matter. It involves a
dispute within the cooperative between two officers on one hand and the Board of
Directors on the other.
Q: Does the failure to file a motion for reconsideration justify the denial of a petition for
certiorari?
A: Yes. A motion for reconsideration is indispensable before resort to the special civil
action for certiorari is made. This is to afford the court or tribunal the opportunity to
correct its error, if any. An omission to comply with this procedural requirement justifies
a denial of the writ of certiorari applied for.

Pascual Sr. V Caniogan Credit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pascual Sr. V Caniogan Credit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pascual Sr. V Caniogan Credit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CELSO F. PASCUAL, SR. AND SERAFIN TERENCIO vs.

CANIOGAN CREDIT AND

Petitioners Celso F. Pascual, Sr. (Pascual) and Serafin Terencio (Terencio)

The Board of Directors of CCDC passed two resolutions terminating Pascual's

CA: petition is dismissed, held that it was prematurely filed.

The general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is indispensable before

Here, petitioners were officers of respondent CCDC. They were appointed

You might also like