SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 226208. February 7, 2018.]

AGNES COELI BUGAOISAN , petitioner, vs. OWI GROUP MANILA and

MORRIS CORPORATION , respondents.

DECISION

REYES, JR. , J : p

This is a petition for review on certiorari 1 pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court, as amended, seeking to partially annul, reverse and set aside the Decision 2
dated February 24, 2016 and Resolution 3 dated August 3, 2016 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 131670, which modi ed the Decision 4 of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) dated May 31, 2013 and denied Agnes Coeli Bugaoisan's
(petitioner) partial motion for reconsideration, respectively. HTcADC

The Facts

A complaint for constructive illegal dismissal and payment of salary for the
unexpired portion of the employment period, moral and exemplary damages, and
attorney's fees was led by the petitioner against respondents OWI Group Manila, Inc.
(OWI) and Morris Corporation (Morris) (collectively referred to as the respondents) and
Marlene D. Alejandrino before the NLRC. The case was docketed as NLRC NCR OFW
CASE NO. (L) 01-0032-12. In that case, the petitioner alleged that on May 6, 2011 she
responded to an advertisement that she saw from OWI regarding a job opening in
Australia. She sent a copy of her resume online and was thereafter scheduled for an
interview at OWI's office in Makati. 5
OWI is the agent of Morris here in the Philippines. OWI offered petitioner full time
employment after she underwent a series of three interviews and did a cooking
demonstration. The following were the terms and conditions of her employment:

Position Chef

Employee Collective Hospitality, Stream, Level 4

Agreement (ECA)
Level

Work Status Fulltime

Annual Salary AUS$60,000 per annum. Please refer to

clause 4.13.3 of the accompanying
ECA

Superannuation An additional 9% of the Annual Salary

Leave 152 hours/20 days paid annual leave &

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 76 hours/10 days paid personal leave
(sick and carers)

Appended to the offer of full-time employment was the petitioner's employment

contract with Morris, a foreign corporation based in Australia. It was stated that her
term of employment was for one year. Petitioner was later medically cleared to work as
chef for Morris by OWI's accredited clinic. 6
On September 25, 2011, petitioner ew from Manila to Perth, Australia. Upon
arrival, she was asked to sign another offer of full-time employment by Morris. It was
indicated in the offer that her position would be of a breakfast chef and she would
receive an annual salary of AUS$75,000.00. She was likewise entitled to a paid annual
leave of 190 hours or 25 days. 7

Position Chef

Annual Salary AUS$75,000 per annum . Please refer

to clause 4.13.3 of the accompanying
ECA

xxx xxx xxx

Morris Corporation Australia Pty Ltd will pay your economy class airfare
to Australia and one return ight to the Philippines once your 457 visa or your
right to work in Australia has expired. If your contract is terminated by
either party during the rst 2 years of employment with Morris
Corporation, you will be expected to return the full cost of the above stated
travel. 8 (Emphasis Ours)
On October 2, 2011, petitioner was deployed to Morris' mining site in Randalls
Kalgoorlie, Australia. She was tasked to prepare breakfast buffet for Morris' 85
employees all by herself. Due to the sheer number of employees, petitioner had to work
through the night in order to serve breakfast on time. It was only then did she learn that
after cooking the dishes, she was also the one who was tasked to wash the dishes.
Overwhelmed with her duties and concerned for her safety when she goes to work at
night, petitioner raised her concerns to the attention of Morris. 9
Morris refused to give her an assistant to aid her in her duties because the
Randalls mining site is relatively small and the tasks can be done by one chef.
Nevertheless, Morris tried to accommodate her by transferring her to its mining site in
Golden Grove, Geraldton, Western Australia. The mining site in Golden Grove is bigger
but petitioner worked with a team. 1 0 aScITE

On October 20, 2011, petitioner was transferred to Morris' mining site in Golden
Grove, Geraldton, Western Australia. She still performed the same task only this time
she had to prepare a breakfast buffet for Morris' 550 mining workers. 1 1
On the evening of November 12, 2011, while preparing the breakfast for the
following day, petitioner felt a tingling sensation followed by numbness on both of her
hands. She was referred to Morris' on-site nurse, who gave her pain reliever. She was
diagnosed to be suffering from Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) and was advised to
undergo an intensive examination for confirmation. 1 2
Petitioner did not heed the advice of the on-site nurse. Instead, she went back to
her work. In the morning of November 14, 2011, she was distraught when the tingling
sensation and numbness on both of her hands worsened. Consequently, she was again
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 brought to the on-site nurse. Thereafter, she was own to Perth, Australia for an
extensive medical test. 1 3
Several physicians, including Morris' preferred physician, conducted a series of
medical examinations on petitioner. She was diagnosed to be suffering from Bilateral
CTS and was declared un t to work for several days. Dr. Timothy Hewitt strongly
advised her to undergo surgery. 1 4
Petitioner led a compensation claim with the Worker's Compensation and Injury
Management (WCIM) of Australia to seek compensation for her wages while she was
still un t for work or reimbursement of her medical expenses. Her application, however,
was denied. 1 5
On December 23, 2011, Morris' representative met with petitioner to inform her
that she already exhausted her paid annual leaves. Nevertheless, they assured her that
they would not be terminating her employment. She must, however, be declared t for
work before they would allow her to report back. 1 6
Although still employed, petitioner had no other means to support her daily
sustenance and the required medication for her CTS due to the fact that she would not
be receiving salary until declared t to go back to work. She decided to tender her
resignation letter and left for the Philippines. Thus, she was repatriated and arrived in
the Philippines on December 25, 2011. Respondents, commiserating with petitioner's
plight, paid for her transportation and reimbursed her expenses for her excess baggage
and meal expenses. 1 7
Respondents were later surprised to learn that petitioner led a labor complaint
against them on January 6, 2012. She averred in her Position Paper 1 8 that she was
illegally dismissed and was not paid her salaries, overtime pay and medical expenses.
In a Decision dated December 28, 2012, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled that the
petitioner was illegally dismissed from employment. It was found that the respondents
committed gross misrepresentation and bad faith in inducing petitioner to work for
them. Respondents ordered her to manually prepare a breakfast buffet for 600 workers
all by herself. According to the LA, petitioner's CTS was caused or at least aggravated
by respondents' oppressive acts. Furthermore, the tenor of her resignation letter and
the immediate ling of the labor complaint evinced that she did not voluntarily tender
her resignation. 1 9 Thus, the LA disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
declaring the dismissal of [petitioner] as unjust and illegal. As such, respondents
are hereby ordered to pay, jointly and severally, [petitioner] the following sums:
AUS$137,500.00 — As salary for the remaining period of
her 2-year employment contract
Php200,000.00 — As moral damages
Php200,000.00 — As exemplary damages
Ten (10%) percent of the total monetary award as attorney's fees
Payment can be made in Australian Dollars or its equivalent in Philippine
Peso at the time of payment.
SO ORDERED. 2 0 (Emphasis and underlining Ours)
On appeal, the NLRC sustained the ndings of the LA with regard to the existence
of constructive dismissal, the solidary liability of the respondents, and the award of
petitioner's salary for the unexpired portion of her two-year employment contract.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Respondents led a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied by the
NLRC in its Resolution dated July 22, 2013. HEITAD

Aggrieved, respondents led with the CA a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
assailing the NLRC's decision and resolution, with prayer for issuance of Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
On February 24, 2016, the CA issued its rst assailed Decision in favor of
petitioner, the pertinent portion of which reads as follows:
Pursuant to the Master Employment Contract between [petitioner] and
[Morris], which was submitted to the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency
on 10 June 2011, the term of the contract for employment was for one
(1) year . Her period of employment started when she arrived in Perth, Australia
on 25 September 2011 and ended three (3) months later. Accordingly,
[petitioner] is entitled to receive total amount of AUS$56,250, which
represents her salary for the unexpired portion of her employment
contract . 2 1 (Emphasis and underlining Ours)
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision dated February 24, 2016, reads:
WHEREFORE , there being no grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the NLRC, the petition is
DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision of the NLRC dated 31 May 2013 is
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. [Petitioner] is awarded with the
amount of AUS$56,250 or its current equivalent in Philippine Peso,
representing her unpaid salaries for the unexpired portion of her one
(1) year employment contract . The rest of the Decision stands. A legal
interest of 6% per annum of the total monetary awards from nality of this
decision until full satisfaction is likewise imposed.
The [LA] is hereby ORDERED to compute the total monetary bene ts
awarded and due the [petitioner] in accordance with this decision.
SO ORDERED. 22 (Emphasis and underlining Ours)
Petitioner moved for partial reconsideration of the CA decision insofar as it ruled
that petitioner's Overseas Employment Contract was only for one (1) year, instead of
two (2) years as ruled by the LA and the NLRC.
On August 3, 2016, the CA issued its assailed Resolution 2 3 denying petitioner's
Motion for Reconsideration, the pertinent portions of which read as follows:
Thus, we note from the Master Employment Contract that the [petitioner]
signed and submitted with the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency on 10
June 2011, that it was explicitly states [sic] that the duration of her contract
was for one (1) year .
Certainly, employment contracts that were approved and veri ed by the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) may still be substituted or altered
from the time the parties actually signed the same up to its expiration even
without approval of the DOLE. Provided, however, that the employee was not
prejudiced and the modi cations made were in accordance with the minimum
standards, terms and conditions of employment set by the POEA-SEC for
contracts of employment of land-based workers.
Here, it is not clear from the letter of offer of full time
employment that [petitioner's] employment contract was extended to
two (2) years. All the same, the absence of [petitioner's] signature in
the said letter evinced the fact that [petitioner] did not accept such
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 offer. Settled is the rule that contracts are perfected by mere consent. That is, a
contract is perfected upon the meeting of the offer, which must be certain, and
the absolute acceptance upon the thing and the cause which shall constitute
the contract. 2 4 (Emphasis and underlining Ours)
Hence, this petition.

The Issues

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE CA GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT

PETITIONER'S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH MORRIS WAS FOR ONLY
ONE (1) YEAR AS PER ITS POEA MASTER EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
II. WHETHER OR NOT SAID CONTRACT WAS VALIDLY MODIFIED BY
MORRIS' SUBSEQUENT "OFFER OF FULLTIME EMPLOYMENT" FOR AT
LEAST TWO (2) YEARS THUS ENTITLING HER TO THE UNPAID SALARIES
FOR THE UNEXPIRED PORTION OF THE TWO-YEAR CONTRACT. 2 5

Ruling of the Court

In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law may be
raised, in contrast with jurisdictional errors which are essentially the basis of Rule 65.
Simply put, in a Rule 65, petition for certiorari led with the CA, the latter must limit
itself to the determination of whether or not the inferior court, tribunal, board or o cer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without, in excess of or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. ATICcS

In resolving said questions of jurisdiction, the CA ruled in favor of petitioner and

public respondent NLRC. It affirmed the findings of the NLRC, ruling that no grave abuse
of discretion could be attributed to the latter when it issued its Decision dated May 31,
2013 and Resolution dated July 22, 2013. However, the appellate court modi ed the
aforesaid decision by reducing the award of unpaid salaries due the petitioner on the
ground that the basis should be the rst contract of employment which had a duration
of only one (1) year.
On the other hand, the NLRC decision a rmed the ruling of the LA insofar as it
concerned, among others, the award of petitioner's unpaid salaries for the unexpired
portion of her employment contract which was adjudged to be two (2) years, viz.:
WHEREFORE , premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
declaring the dismissal of [petitioner] as unjust and illegal. As such, respondents
are hereby ordered to pay, jointly and severally, [petitioner] the following sums:
AUS$137,500.00 — As salary for the remaining period of
her 2-year employment contract
Php200,000.00 — As moral damages
Php200,000.00 — As exemplary damages
Ten (10%) percent of the total monetary award as attorney's fees.
Payment can be made in Australian Dollars or its equivalent in Philippine
Peso at the time of payment.
SO ORDERED . 2 6 (Emphasis and underlining Ours)

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 The primary issue now that must be resolved is whether or not the CA was
correct when it went beyond the issues of the case and the assigned errors raised by
respondents when it filed the certiorari petition under Rule 65.
The Rules of Court is clear and unambiguous in this regard. A petition for
certiorari is governed by Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, which reads:
Section 1 . Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board or
o cer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in
excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved
thereby may le a veri ed petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the
proceedings of such tribunal, board or o cer, and granting such incidental
reliefs as law and justice may require.
xxx xxx xxx
To eradicate confusion, what respondents led with the CA was a special
civil action for certiorari, under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. The issues
raised by respondents before the appellate court ascribed grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the NLRC in resolving the merits of the case. If
respondents wanted to question the matter regarding contract duration, it
should have raised the issue at the earliest possible opportunity or raised it as
error on the part of the NLRC, thus, strengthening its claim of abuse of
discretion committed by the latter. This issue, however, remained unraised.
A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction
or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It cannot be
used for any other purpose, as its function is limited to keeping the inferior court within
the bounds of its jurisdiction. 2 7
The supervisory jurisdiction of a court over the issuance of a writ of certiorari
cannot be exercised for the purpose of reviewing the intrinsic correctness of a
judgment of the lower court — on the basis either of the law or the facts of the case, or
of the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision. 2 8 Even if the ndings of the court
are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over the case, such correction is normally
beyond the province of certiorari. 2 9 Where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but an
error of law or fact — a mistake of judgment — appeal is the remedy. 3 0
Applying this to the case at bench, the supervisory jurisdiction of the CA under
Rule 65 was con ned only to the determination of whether or not the NLRC committed
grave abuse of discretion in deciding the issues brought before it on appeal. To
recapitulate, the CA is allowed to consider the factual issues only insofar as they serve
as the basis of the jurisdictional error imputed to the lower court or in this case, the
NLRC.
What, then, is the "question of law" that must be resolved by this Court in a Rule
45 petition assailing a decision of the CA on a Rule 65 certiorari petition?
In the case of Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation/Mr. Ellena, et al. , 3 1 the
Court ruled: TIADCc

In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA

decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake
under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law
raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled
upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of
whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of
discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC
decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be
keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of
the NLRC decision challenged before it. This is the approach that should be
basic in a Rule 45 review of a CA ruling in a labor case. 3 2
Similarly, the petition before the Court involves mixed questions of law and fact.
Respondents, in its Comment claim that the present petition must be denied for the
reason that only questions of law must be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45.
They are correct.
To reiterate, the CA correctly a rmed the ndings of the NLRC in that: (1)
petitioner was illegally dismissed; and (2) petitioner was entitled to her unpaid salaries
for the unexpired portion of the employment contract, damages and attorney's fees.
However, it departed from the issues presented by the parties and decided by the labor
tribunals when it modi ed the award of unpaid salaries to petitioner notwithstanding
the fact that neither party ever raised as an issue the matter regarding duration of
petitioner's employment contract. The labor tribunals ruled that the award of unpaid
salaries should be the amount corresponding to the unexpired portion of the
employment contract which is two (2) years. The CA, on the other hand, modi ed the
award on the ground that the second contract was not clear as to whether or not the
original duration of one (1) year had been extended. Thus, applying the pertinent
provisions of the Civil Code regarding perfection of contracts, it posits that the one (1)
year period should be applied.
Without an iota of doubt, this is a question of fact that is outside the scope of a
petition for review under rule 65. The CA is only tasked to determine whether or not the
NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in its appreciation of factual issues
presented before it by any parties. The CA is not given unbridled discretion to modify
factual ndings of the NLRC and LA, especially when such matters have not been
assigned as errors nor raised in the pleadings.
With regard to the issues brought to the Court in this present petition, it bears
stressing that this Court's review of a CA ruling is limited to: (i) ascertaining the
correctness of the CA's decision in nding the presence or absence of grave abuse of
discretion; and (ii) deciding any other jurisdictional error that attended the CA's
interpretation or application of the law. 3 3
Clearly, the appellate court found no grave abuse of discretion committed by the
NLRC as enunciated in the dispositive portion of its assailed decision, viz.:
WHEREFORE , there being no grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the NLRC, the petition is
DISMISSED for lack of merit x x x. 3 4
There being no grave abuse of discretion, the CA erred when it ruled that
petitioner's employment contract with Morris was for only one (1) year.
The Court is precluded from doing an independent review of this factual matter
since it has already been decided by the labor tribunals, unless the CA, in the certiorari
petition, ascertains that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion. Absent such
determination, factual ndings of the NLRC are deemed conclusive and binding even on
this Court.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 In light of the foregoing, the Court considers the ndings of fact of the LA, as
a rmed by the NLRC, nal and conclusive, in the absence of proof that the latter acted
without, in excess of or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED . The
Decision dated February 24, 2016 and Resolution dated August 3, 2016 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 131670 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION insofar as
the award of petitioner Agnes Coeli Bugaoisan unpaid salaries is concerned. The
Decision dated May 31, 2013 of the National Labor Relations Commission with respect
to the award of unpaid salaries to petitioner Agnes Coeli Bugaoisan for the unexpired
portion of her two-year contract with respondents OWI Group Manila, Inc. and Morris
Corporation is hereby REINSTATED . AIDSTE

SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe and Caguioa, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 31-58.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and
Leoncia R. Dimagiba concurring; id. at 60-75.

3. Id. at 27-29.
4. Id. at 370-384.
5. Id. at 61.
6. Id. at 62.
7. Id.

8. Id. at 190.
9. Id.
10. Id. at 63.
11. Id.
12. Id.

13. Id.
14. Id.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 64.

17. Id.
18. Id. at 83-103.
19. Id.
20. Id. at 310.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 21. Id. at 74.
22. Id. at 74-75.
23. Id. at 27-28.

24. Id.
25. Id. at 38-39.
26. Id. at 310.
27. Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank, et al., 575 Phil. 384, 396 (2008), citing Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 456 Phil. 755, 784 (2003).
28. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, id.
29. Ala-Martin v. Sultan, 418 Phil. 597, 604 (2001).

30. Spouses Samson v. Judge Rivera, 472 Phil. 836, 849-850 (2004).
31. 613 Phil. 696 (2009).
32. Id. at 706-707.
33. See Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Arturo Brion in Abbott Laboratories Philippines,
et al. v. Pearlie Ann Alcaraz, 714 Phil. 510, 549 (2013).
34. Rollo, p. 74.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com