8/12/2019 AMA Computer College v Nacino

1/1

AMA v. NACINO

Petitioner AMA Computer College employed Chelly P. Nacino as OnlineCoordinator of the college.

One day, during inspection, the Human Resources Division upervisor, Ms. anPedro found Nacino a!sent from his post. an Pedro then issued a Memorandumre"uiring Nacino to e#plain his a!sence. Nacino filed $ith an Pedro a $rittene#planationclaiming that he had to rush home !ecause he $as suffering from %&M

and that the facilities in the school $ere inade"uate. Not satisfied $ith thee#planation, an Pedro sought another e#planation !ut Nacino furnished the same$ritten e#planation earlier su!mitted.

an Pedro then filed a formal complaint against Nacino for false testimony, inaddition to the charge of a!andonment. 'he (nvestigating Committee found Nacinoguilty as charged, and $as su!se"uently dismissed from the service.

Aggrieved, Nacino filed a complaint for (llegal uspension and 'ermination!efore the National Conciliation and Mediation &oard )NCM&*. AMA+srepresentative, signed the su!mission Agreement, accepting the urisdiction of-oluntary Ar!itrator amaniego over the controversy.

'he parties agreed to settle the case amica!ly, $ith Nacino discharging andreleasing AMA from all his claims in consideration of the sum of P,/0.1/. 'he

Decision em!odying the Compromise $as duly prepared and signed, !ut the chec2 inpayment of the consideration for the settlement had yet to !e released.During the pendency of the case, Nacino died in an accident.'he -oluntary Ar!itrator ordered Nacino+s reinstatement and the payment of his

!ac2$ages and /3thmonth pay. He manifested that, due to AMA+s failure to pay thesum of P,/0.1/, Nacino $ithdre$ from the Compromise Agreement. then issued a4rit of 5#ecution upon motion of Nacino+s surviving spouse.

AMA filed a Motion to 6uash the said 4rit !ut the -oluntary Ar!itrator

allegedly refused to receive the same. 'hus, the heirs of Nacino $ere a!le to garnishAMA+s !an2 deposits in the amount of P78,98/.9.

AMA filed a Petitionfor Certiorariunder Rule :7 !efore the CA.'he CA dismissed the said petition !ecause it $as a $rong mode of revie$. (t

held that the proper remedy $as an appeal !y $ay of Rule ;3. 'he CA held anerroneous appeal shall !e dismissed outright pursuant to ection 8, Rule 79. MR $asalso denied. Hence, this petition.

Issue:4