6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly pendency of the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals.[63] The Court of Appeals modified the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission. [64] Eastern Shipping filed a Petition for Review before this court, arguing that the final and executory Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission cannot be modified by the Court of Appeals.[65] This court held that: Section 14, Rule VII of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure provides that decisions, resolutions or orders of the NLRC shall become final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties, and entry of judgment shall be made upon the expiration of the said period. In St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, however, it was ruled that judicial review of decisions at the NLRC may be sought via a petition for certiorari before the CA under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; and under Section 4 thereof, petitioners are allowed sixty (60) days from notice of the assailed order or resolution within which to file the petition. Hence, in cases where a petition for certiorari is filed after the expiration of the 10-day period under the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure but within the 60day period under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the CA can grant the petition and modify, nullify and reverse a decision or resolution of the NLRC.[66] (Emphasis in the original) Thus, a petition for certiorari assailing a decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is allowed even after the National Labor Relations Commission's Decision has become final and executory, provided that the petition is filed before the expiration of the 60-day reglementary period under Rule 65. The reason for this rule was discussed in Leonis Navigation Co., Inc., et al. v. Villamater and/or The Heirs of the Late Catalino U. Villamater, et al.,[67] where one of the issues was whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that final and executory decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission can no longer be questioned.[68] This court discussed: Further, a petition for certiorari does not normally include an inquiry into the correctness of its evaluation of the evidence. Errors of judgment, as distinguished from errors of jurisdiction, are not within the province of a special civil action for certiorari, which is merely confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. It is, thus, incumbent upon petitioners to satisfactorily establish that the NLRC acted capriciously and whimsically in order that the extraordinary writ of certiorari will lie. By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and it must be shown that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or despotically. The CA, therefore, could grant the petition for certiorari if it finds that the NLRC, in its assailed decision or resolution, committed grave abuse of elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61719 6/26