6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly was actually previously done, to have effect as of the former date. Its office is not to supply omitted action by the court, but to supply an omission in the record of action really had, but omitted through inadvertence or mistake. (Perkins vs. Haywood, 31 N. E., 670, 672) Section A of Rule VII of the NLRC Rules of Procedure provides that “except as provided in Section 9 of Rule X, the decisions, resolutions or orders of the Commission shall become final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties. Section B of the same Rules provides that “upon the expiration of the ten (10) calendar days period provided in paragraph (a) of this Section, the decision, resolution, or order shall be entered in a book of entries of judgment.” Therefore, absent any TRO, the NLRC had the ministerial duty to issue an entry of judgment. What this Court finds confusing in this case is that, the entry of judgment declaring that its Resolution dated March 31, 2008 has become final and executory on June 16, 2008 is belatedly dated June 10, 2009. Based on the records, the Resolution dated January 24, 2008 of the NLRC, dismissing respondent's appeal was received by respondent on February 8, 2008. She then filed a Motion for Reconsideration on February 15, 2008. Said Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution dated March 31, 2008 and received by the respondent on April 29, 2008. According to the NLRC, its Resolution of March 31, 2008 became final and executory on June 16, 2008 per Entry of Judgment dated June 10, 2009. On June 25, 2008, respondent filed her petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA. Clearly, applying the above-provisions of the NLRC Rules of Procedure, the case should have become final and executory on May 10, 2008 and not on June 16, 2008, as later on certified by the NLRC. In that regard, the NLRC committed a mistake. In its Resolution dated May 27, 2010, the CA explained that it resolved the issues raised by the respondent even though the decision of the NLRC had lapsed as contemplated in Section 223 of the Labor Code, on the ground that she filed on time a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and the allegations contained therein are jurisdictional and with due process considerations, citing this Court's decision on St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC.[11] In St. Martin,[12] this Court explained the proper mode of appeal from the decision of the NLRC in view of the amended Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, a law which provides for the jurisdictions of courts. Thus, The Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that ever since appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court were eliminated, the legislative intendment was that the special civil action of certiorari was and still is the proper vehicle for judicial review of decisions of the NLRC. The use of the word “appeal” in relation thereto and in the instances we have noted could have been lapsus plumae because appeals by certiorari and the original action for certiorari are both modes of judicial review addressed to the appellate courts. The important distinction between them, however, and with which the Court is particularly concerned here is that the special civil action of certiorari is within the concurrent original jurisdiction of this Court and the Court of Appeals; whereas to elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58917 5/9