Ginete v. Sunrise Manning Agency
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Sanny Ginete filed a complaint against respondents Sunrise Manning Agency and Summer Wind Shipping Co./Trust Carrier SA for illegal dismissal, seeking payment of wages plus interest for the unexpired portion of his employment contract. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint but awarded P5,000 in damages for violation of due process. 2. Procedural History: The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision. Petitioner received the NLRC decision on March 16, 1999, and filed a motion for reconsideration on March 25, 1999. This motion was denied, with petitioner's counsel receiving notice on June 21, 1999, and petitioner himself on July 22, 1999. The Court of Appeals granted an extension for filing a petition for certiorari, which was filed on September 27, 1999. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, deeming it filed 30 days late from the counsel's receipt of the NLRC resolution. 3. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review under Rule 45, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing his petition for certiorari as untimely. He contends that in labor cases, notice must be served separately on both the party and counsel, and thus the period should be counted from his personal receipt of the NLRC resolution on July 22, 1999. Petitioner also claims a denial of due process due to the dismissal on technical grounds, particularly for an overseas Filipino worker.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the petition for certiorari was filed out of time. Whether petitioner was denied due process of law when his petition was dismissed on technical rules.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not err in holding that the petition for certiorari was filed out of time. Petitioner was not denied due process.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition for certiorari: The Court held that the period for filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals from a decision of the NLRC is governed by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, specifically Section 4 thereof, which states that the petition must be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment or resolution sought to be assailed. Corollarily, Section 2, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that if a party is represented by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel. This is in line with the established rule that notice to counsel is notice to the party. The Court clarified that Article 224 of the Labor Code, which petitioner invoked, pertains to the execution of final decisions, orders, or awards and not to the period for filing a petition for certiorari. Therefore, the counting of the 60-day period should commence from the date petitioner's counsel received the NLRC Resolution on June 21, 1999, making the petition filed on September 27, 1999, indeed late. On the alleged denial of due process: The Court found no merit in petitioner's contention of denial of due process. Due process simply demands an opportunity to be heard, and this opportunity was not denied to the petitioner. He was given the chance to present his side before the Labor Arbiter, appealed to the NLRC, and filed a motion for reconsideration. He also had the remedy of a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, although he failed to comply with the procedural requirements for its timely filing.
Main Doctrine
In labor cases, for the purpose of computing the period of appeal to the Court of Appeals from a decision of the NLRC, notice to the counsel of record is considered notice to the party, in line with the established rule that notice to counsel is notice to the party.