Bello v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Fred N. Bello was employed as Operations Manager by respondent Corpuz Moya Security and Services, Inc. (CMSSI). His duties were later limited, and he agreed to the change on the condition of receiving a daily transportation allowance. Subsequently, CMSSI informed Bello of his dismissal, citing the termination of a contract with Robinsons Antipolo Homes and the need for retrenchment due to significant revenue loss. Bello filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and various money claims, asserting that the dismissal was unjustified and that the company's financial difficulties were not adequately substantiated. Respondents contended that the cancellation of contracts led to substantial revenue loss, necessitating austerity measures and Bello's retrenchment, and also alleged poor performance and frequent absences by Bello. Procedural History: The Executive Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Bello, finding him illegally dismissed and ordering his reinstatement with full backwages or separation pay, plus backwages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, finding sufficient basis for retrenchment due to financial difficulties and Bello's absences, and ordered a nominal indemnity. Bello's motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC. Bello's counsel received the NLRC's denial resolution on November 4, 1999. Bello was only informed of this denial on April 18, 2000. Bello filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) on June 2, 2000. The Petition: The Court of Appeals dismissed Bello's petition for certiorari for being filed out of time and later denied his motion for reconsideration. Bello seeks reversal of the CA's dismissal, arguing that the 60-day period for filing the certiorari petition should be counted from the date he was personally informed of the NLRC's denial, not from the date his counsel received the resolution, citing PNOC Dockyard and Engineering Corporation v. NLRC. He also urges relaxation of procedural rules due to the merits of his case, specifically the alleged failure of respondents to substantiate their claims of business losses justifying retrenchment. The Supreme Court, however, affirmed the CA's ruling, holding that the period for filing a certiorari petition is reckoned from the receipt of the resolution by the counsel of record, citing Ginete v. Sunrise Manning Agency and relevant rules of procedure, and found Bello's petition to be filed 163 days late.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for having been filed out of time. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner was legal and justified.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, dated July 5, 2000 and November 24, 2000, are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the petition for certiorari was filed out of time: The Court affirmed the CA's dismissal, holding that the right to appeal is mandatory and noncompliance is fatal. The period for filing a petition for certiorari with the CA from an NLRC decision is reckoned from the time the counsel of record received a copy of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. This is based on Section 4, Rule III of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC and Section 2, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which establish that notice to counsel is notice to the party. The petitioner's counsel received the NLRC resolution on November 4, 1999, but the petition for certiorari was filed on June 2, 2000, which was 211 days later, or 163 days late. The Court reiterated that failure to perfect an appeal is not a mere technicality but a jurisdictional problem that deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that after a decision becomes final and executory, vested rights are acquired, and the winning party has the right to enjoy the finality of the decision. On the issue of whether the dismissal of the petitioner was legal and justified: While the Court did not directly rule on the merits of the illegal dismissal claim due to the procedural bar, it noted the NLRC's finding that there was sufficient basis for retrenchment due to financial difficulties and the petitioner's alleged frequent absences. The Labor Arbiter had found the dismissal illegal for failure to observe procedural due process and lack of substantial evidence for retrenchment. However, the NLRC reversed this, and the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari on procedural grounds, preventing a review of the substantive issue by the Supreme Court.
Main Doctrine
The period for filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals from a decision of the NLRC is reckoned from the time the counsel of record received a copy of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, in accordance with Section 4, Rule III of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC and Section 2, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates that notice to counsel is notice to the party. Failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period is fatal and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction.