5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In this Opinion, I submit that the proper and legal framework of review of a CA decision in a labor case is that laid down by the Court in Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation.[1] I also submit that while Moradas is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, he is entitled to an income benefit. I. The proper and legal framework of review of a Rule 65 CA decision in a labor case a. The transfer of a labor case from the quasi-judicial sphere to the judicial sphere entails a specific mode of limited review When a labor case decided by quasi-judicial tribunals - the Labor Arbiter (LA) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) - finds its way into the judicial sphere, the court must proceed and act on the petition on the basic premise that the assailed ruling is a final and executory ruling. This premise, in turn, is based on two facts: first, labor cases that reach the CA (and eventually the Supreme Court) are already rulings on the merits that finally dispose of the case; and, second, after the labor tribunals have rendered judgment, substantive law no longer provides any remedy of appeal to the losing party. Notwithstanding the absence of appeal, the aggrieved party is not without any legal remedy. As the legal battle is transferred from the quasi judicial sphere to the strictly judicial sphere, the aggrieved party must contend with the fact that the new avenue for legal advocacy becomes narrower. The review allowed is limited to jurisdictional grounds under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Rule 65).[2] As early as 1975, the Court had the occasion to state: While an appeal does not lie, it is available whenever a jurisdictional issue is raised or one of grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack of excess thereof. x x x This excerpt, from the opinion of Justice Aquino in San Miguel Corporation v. Secretary of Labor, is in point: "Yanglay raised a jurisdictional question which as not brought up by respondent public officials. He contends that this Court has no jurisdiction to review the decisions of the NLRC and the Secretary of Labor 'under the principle of separation of powers' and that judicial review is not provided for in Presidential Decree No. 21. That contention is a flagrant error. 'It is generally understood that as to administrative agencies exercising quasijudicial or legislative power there is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute' x x x. Judicial review is proper in case of lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, error of law, fraud or collusion."[3] (emphases ours, citations omitted) elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56605 13/31