SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 189942, August 09, 2017
ADTEL, INC. AND/OR REYNALDO T. CASAS, Petitioners, v. MARIJOY A. VALDEZ, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the 28 May 2009 Resolution2 and the 8 October 2009 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 108169.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the instant complaint for utter lack of merit.The Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission
SO ORDERED.14
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED and the assailed Decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new one is hereby rendered ordering the respondent company to pay to the complainant the following amounts:Adtel filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the NLRC on 24 December 2008. Adtel received the NLRC Resolution on 5 February 2009. On 7 April 2009, the last day for filing its petition for certiorari with the CA, Adtel filed a motion for extension of time with the CA. On 22 April 2009, fifteen (15) days after the last day for filing or the 75th day, Adtel filed its petition for certiorari with the CA.17
1. P283,000.00 - representing her separation pay for her almost ten years of service to the company;
2. P684,600.58 - representing her backwages from May 29, 2006 up to the date of this Decision;
Plus ten percent (10%) of the total monetary awards, as and for attorney's fees.
Other claims and charges are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.16
WHEREFORE, the Motion is DENIED. Instead, the petition is DISMISSED for being filed beyond the reglementary period.Adtel filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied on 8 October 2009.20
SO ORDERED.19
A. The Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in denying the petitioners' motion for reconsideration and in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the sole basis of technicality.The Decision of this Court
B. Technicalities should give way to a judgment on the merits considering that the Labor Arbiter justly and correctly ruled that the complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner was baseless and unmeritorious only to be later reversed by the NLRC upon respondent's appeal.21
Sec. 4. When and where to file the petition. — The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted from the notice of the denial of the motion.A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC states that in cases where a motion for reconsideration was timely filed, the filing of a petition for certiorari questioning the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration must be made not later than sixty (60) days from the notice of the denial of the motion. In Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals,22 this Court held that following A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from the notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration. In Laguna Metts Corporation, this Court stated the rationale for the strict observance of the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari, to wit:
If the petition relates to an act or an omission of a municipal trial court or of a corporation, a board, an officer or a person, it shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed with the Court of Appeals or with the Sandiganbayan, whether or not the same is in aid of the court's appellate jurisdiction. If the petition involves an act or an omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed with and be cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
In election cases involving an act or an omission of a municipal or a regional trial court, the petition shall be filed exclusively with the Commission on Elections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
The 60-day period is deemed reasonable and sufficient time for a party to mull over and to prepare a petition asserting grave abuse of discretion by a lower court. The period was specifically set to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of the parties to a speedy disposition of their case.23In Laguna Metts Corporation, this Court ruled that the 60-day period was non-extendible and the CA no longer had the authority to grant the motion for extension in view of A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC which amended Section 4 of Rule 65.
In Yutingco v. Court of Appeals,30 this Court held that the circumstance of heavy workload alone, absent a compelling or special reason, is not a sufficient justification to allow an extension of the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari, to wit:MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
1. Petitioner's Petition for Certiorari was due for filing yesterday, 06 April 2009 or sixty (60) days from 05 February 2009, the date of receipt of the Resolution dated 24 December 2008 issued by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Considering that yesterday was a holiday, the petition in effect is due today, 07 April 2009.
2. While a draft of the pleading had already been prepared, final revisions have yet to be completed. However, due to the undersigned counsel's heavy volume of work, petitioner is constrained to request for an additional period of fifteen (15) days from today or up to 22 April 2009 within which to file the Petition for Certiorari.
3. This motion is not intended to delay the proceedings but is prompted solely by the above-stated reason.PRAYER
WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays for an extension of fifteen (15) days from 07 April 2009 or up to 22 April 2009 within which to file its Petition for Certiorari.
Petitioner prays for such other relief which may be deemed just and equitable under the circumstances.29 (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)
Heavy workload, which is relative and often self serving, ought to be coupled with more compelling reasons such as illness of counsel or other emergencies that could be substantiated by affidavits of merit. Standing alone, heavy workload is not sufficient reason to deviate from the 60-day rule. Thus, we are constrained to state that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for having been filed late.31In Thenamaris Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,32 this Court held that the heavy workload of counsel is hardly a compelling or meritorious reason for availing a motion for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari. Similarly, in Mid-Islands Power, this Court ruled that the heavy workload and the resignation of the lawyer handling the case are insufficient reasons to justify the relaxation of the procedural rules under Rule 65. In both Thenamaris and Mid-Islands Power, this Court denied the motions for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari and held that the heavy workload of counsel was not a compelling reason contemplated by the Rules of Court.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 6-27. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2 Id. at 34-35. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Marlene Gonzales-Sison concurring.
3 Id. at 29-31. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Marlene Gonzales-Sison concurring.
4 Id. at 135.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 136.
8 Id. at 69-70.
9 Id. at 136.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 75-90.
13 Id. at 91 -101. Penned by Labor Arbiter Fatima Jambaro-Franco.
14 Id. at 101.
15 Id at 135-144.
16 Id. at 143.
17 Id. at 34.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 35.
20 Id. at 13.
21 Id.
22 611 Phil. 530 (2009).
23 Id. at 535, citing De Los Santos v. Court of Appeals, 522 Phil. 313 (2006).
24 627 Phil. 341 (2010).
25 649 Phil. 213 (2010).
26 683 Phil. 325 (2012).
27 693 Phil. 145 (2012).
28 Id. at 156-157.
29Rollo, pp. 161-162.
30 435 Phil. 83 (2002).
31 Id. at 92.
32 725 Phil. 590 (2014).
33 Supra note 25.