6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly indulge in the assumption that appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court are allowed would not subserve, but would subvert, the intention of Congress as expressed in the sponsorship speech on Senate Bill No. 1495. xxxx Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of BP 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. Consequently, all such petitions should therefore be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine of hiearchy of courts as the appropriate forum for the relief desired.[13] Basically, this Court, in the abovecited case ruled as to the proper court within which to file a remedy from the decisions of the NLRC. Based on the records, since the petition of herein respondent was filed before the expiration of the period within which to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the CA, therefore, committed no error in not dismissing and eventually deciding the case. Necessarily, if the mode of appeal is that of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 65, its reglementary period must be the one followed. Petitioner is, however, correct in its argument that the filing of the petition for certiorari does not interrupt the course of the principal case. Section 7 of Rule 65 provides: Sec. 7. Expediting proceedings; Injunctive relief. - The court in which the petition is filed may issue orders expediting the proceedings, and it may also grant a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings. The petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued enjoining the public respondent from further proceeding with the case. The public respondent shall proceed with the principal case within ten (10) days from the filing of a petition for certiorari with a higher court or tribunal absent a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, or upon its expiration. x x x Nevertheless, after careful review of the records, this Court considers the findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC, more plausible. It is indisputable that Ildefonso was previously employed by the petitioners as Second Engineer on board the vessel MV/ACX Magnolia to work for a duration of twelve (12) months pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Contract of Employment entered into by the parties on August 23, 2004, which was duly approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). Based on the records, however, Ildefonso pre-terminated his contract of employment with the petitioners when on April 9, 2005, he requested for a vacation leave effective elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58917 6/9