Waterfront Cebu City Casino Hotel v. Ledesma
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Ildebrando Ledesma was employed as a House Detective at Waterfront Cebu City Casino Hotel, Inc. (Waterfront). Based on complaints from Christe Mandal and Rosanna Lofranco, Ledesma was dismissed for alleged sexual misconduct: kissing and mashing Christe Mandal's breasts inside an elevator, and exhibiting his penis to Rosanna Lofranco and asking her to masturbate him in a conference room. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) declared Ledesma's dismissal illegal and ordered reinstatement with backwages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA, finding Ledesma's acts constituted grave misconduct justifying dismissal. Ledesma's motion for reconsideration was denied. His counsel of record, Atty. Gines Abellana, received the denial on March 15, 2010. Ledesma received his copy on March 24, 2010. On May 17, 2010, Ledesma, through new counsel, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was 63 days after Atty. Abellana's receipt and 54 days after Ledesma's receipt. The CA granted Ledesma leave to file an amended petition and subsequently reversed the NLRC, reinstating the LA's decision. Waterfront's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Waterfront filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, primarily questioning the timeliness of Ledesma's petition before the CA. Ledesma raised procedural infirmities against Waterfront's petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari filed by respondent Ledesma before the Court of Appeals was timely filed. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC's decision and reinstating the Labor Arbiter's ruling, assuming the petition was timely filed.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision and Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission finding the dismissal of Ildebrando Ledesma valid are REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition for certiorari before the CA: The Court held that Ledesma's petition for certiorari before the CA was filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period. Atty. Abellana, Ledesma's counsel of record, received the NLRC Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration on March 15, 2010. Under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended, the petition should have been filed not later than sixty (60) days from this notice. Excluding the first day and including the last, the deadline was May 14, 2010. Ledesma filed his petition on May 17, 2010, making it belated. The Court emphasized that notice to counsel of record is binding on the client, and the negligence of counsel in computing the period or failing to inform the client does not justify a belated filing. The Court reiterated the ruling in Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals that the amended rule mandatorily requires compliance with the reglementary period, which can no longer be extended. Ledesma's attempt to reckon the period from his own receipt of the resolution on March 24, 2010, was without legal basis. Furthermore, Ledesma failed to provide any reasonable or meritorious explanation for the belated filing, thus not warranting the relaxation of procedural rules. On the merits of the dismissal (assuming timeliness): Even if the petition were considered timely, the Court found that the NLRC correctly ruled that Ledesma's dismissal was valid. The CA's reliance on the absence of CCTV footage was misplaced, as substantial evidence, consisting of the positive and credible testimonies of the complainants, was sufficient to establish Ledesma's misconduct. Ledesma never refuted the allegations made by Rosanna Lofranco regarding the incident in the conference room. The Court noted that Ledesma's position as House Detective gave him access and opportunity to commit the lewd act. Such acts constituted misconduct or improper behavior, which is a just cause for dismissal.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals must strictly comply with the 60-day reglementary period from notice of the judgment or order denying a motion for reconsideration. Failure to file within the period, without a justifiable explanation, divests the appellate court of jurisdiction. Notice to counsel of record is binding on the client.