G.R. No. 167614 9 of 33 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/march2009/167614.htm When the Court is called upon to exercise its power of judicial review of the acts of its co-equals, such as the Congress, it does so only when these conditions obtain: (1) that there is an actual [47] case or controversy involving a conflict of rights susceptible of judicial determination; (2) that the [48] [49] constitutional question is raised by a proper party and at the earliest opportunity; and (3) that [50] otherwise the Court will dismiss the the constitutional question is the very lis mota of the case, [51] case or decide the same on some other ground. Without a doubt, there exists in this case an actual controversy directly involving petitioner who is personally aggrieved that the labor tribunals and the CA computed his monetary award based on the salary period of three months only as provided under the subject clause. The constitutional challenge is also timely. It should be borne in mind that the requirement that a constitutional issue be raised at the earliest opportunity entails the interposition of the issue in the pleadings before a competent court, such that, if the issue is not raised in the pleadings before that competent court, it cannot be considered at the trial and, if not considered in the trial, it cannot be [52] Records disclose that the issue on the constitutionality of the subject clause considered on appeal. was first raised, not in petitioner's appeal with the NLRC, but in his Motion for Partial Reconsideration [53] [54] and reiterated in his Petition for Certiorari before the CA. with said labor tribunal, Nonetheless, the issue is deemed seasonably raised because it is not the NLRC but the CA which has the competence to resolve the constitutional issue. The NLRC is a labor tribunal that merely performs a quasi-judicial function its function in the present case is limited to determining questions of fact to which the legislative policy of R.A. No. 8042 is to be applied and to resolving such questions in [55] accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself; thus, its foremost function is to administer and enforce R.A. No. 8042, and not to inquire into the validity of its provisions. The CA, on the other hand, is vested with the power of judicial review or the power to declare unconstitutional [56] a law or a provision thereof, such as the subject clause. Petitioner's interposition of the constitutional issue before the CA was undoubtedly seasonable. The CA was therefore remiss in failing to take up the issue in its decision. The third condition that the constitutional issue be critical to the resolution of the case likewise obtains because the monetary claim of petitioner to his lump-sum salary for the entire unexpired portion of his 12-month employment contract, and not just for a period of three months, strikes at the very core of the subject clause. 1/26/2016 3:06 PM