This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2008-06-12 |
PUNO, CJ. |
||||
| Petitioner's contention is untenable. It is well-settled that to determine the true intent and meaning of a decision, no specific portion thereof should be resorted to, but the same must be considered in its entirety.[19] Hence, petitioner cannot merely view a portion of the 15 March 1989 Resolution in isolation for the purpose of asserting its position. The 23 January 1989 Resolution already ruled on the NLRC's lack of jurisdiction over all the respondents in the case - PAGCOR, PCOC and PSSC. The Third Division neither veered away nor reversed such ruling in its 15 March 1989 Resolution to petitioner's motion for reconsideration. A reading of the two aforementioned resolutions clearly shows that the phrase "private companies" could not have referred to PCOC and PSSC for that would substantially alter the Court's ruling that petitioner's labor cases against the respondents are cognizable by the Civil Service Commission, and not by the NLRC. In its assailed decision, the Court of Appeals ratiocinated:Evidently, the [March 15] Resolution containing the questioned pronouncement did not give legal mandate to petitioner to file its Petition with the Department of Labor and Employment or any of its agencies. On the contrary, the Resolution decided with finality that petitions brought against the PAGCOR or similar agencies/instrumentalities of the government must be filed with the Civil Service Commission which has jurisdiction on the matter. The questioned pronouncement, to Our mind, was made only to illustrate the instance when jurisdiction is instead conferred on the Department of Labor vis-à-vis the Civil Service Commission; that is, when the petitions are filed [against] private companies. | |||||