Thenamaris Philippines v. Mendigorin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint filed by Amanda C. Mendigorin, widow of seafarer Guillermo M. Mendigorin, against Thenamaris Philippines, Inc. (formerly Intermare Maritime Agencies, Inc./Oceanic Navigation Ltd.) and its general manager, Capt. Nicanor B. Altares. The complaint sought death benefits, unpaid salaries, sickness allowance, reimbursement of medical expenses, damages, and attorney's fees. Guillermo Mendigorin, employed by Thenamaris for 27 years, died of colon cancer during his employment contract. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the private respondent, ordering the petitioners to pay death benefits, medical expenses, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision on appeal. The private respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC on June 29, 2009. Subsequently, on September 8, 2009, sixty-two days after receiving the NLRC resolution, the private respondent filed a motion for an extension of time to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), citing her counsel's heavy workload. The CA, in a resolution dated November 20, 2009, noted the petition despite it being filed 15 days late and having procedural infirmities, directing the private respondent to correct these deficiencies. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration seeking dismissal was denied by the CA on February 10, 2010, which granted the private respondent another opportunity to comply. The Petition: The petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's resolutions for grave abuse of discretion. They argued that the CA erred in entertaining the private respondent's petition for certiorari which was filed beyond the mandatory 60-day period and after the NLRC resolution had become final and executory. The petitioners contended that A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC amended Rule 65 to disallow extensions for filing a petition for certiorari, making the 60-day period non-extendible, and that the private respondent's motion for extension was filed late and based on an insufficient excuse. They further argued that the CA should have dismissed the petition outright due to the late filing and the procedural infirmities, which the private respondent failed to fully correct.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it entertained a petition for certiorari filed 15 days late and allowed the private respondent to correct procedural infirmities. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in grossly ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling in Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals which disallowed motions for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the assailed Court of Appeals Resolutions dated November 20, 2009, and February 10, 2010, for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Petition for Certiorari filed by private respondent Amanda C. Mendigorin in CA-G.R. SP No. 110808 was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals entertaining a late petition for certiorari: The Court held that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion. The general rule, as laid down in Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals, is that a petition for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC. This amendment removed the provision for filing a motion for extension, unlike the original Rule 65. The Court clarified that while exceptional cases may allow extension under the court's sound discretion, as held in Domdom v. Third and Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan, the reason provided by the private respondent's counsel – a heavy workload – is not a compelling or meritorious reason. Such an excuse is relative, self-serving, and insufficient to deviate from the 60-day rule. The motion for extension was filed 62 days after receipt of the NLRC resolution, and the petition itself was filed 15 days late. The CA's action of noting the petition 'in the interest of substantial justice' despite these clear procedural lapses was an evasion of its positive duty. The Court emphasized that a motion for extension must be filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended; otherwise, it is of no effect. The CA's resolution to allow the curing of defects, even after the petition was already late and plagued with infirmities, and the subsequent grant of a 'last chance' despite continued non-compliance, constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Court reiterated that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and a court loses jurisdiction to entertain a petition that assails such a final and executory judgment, except to dismiss it. The CA's failure to dismiss the petition outright, given that the NLRC resolution had become final and executory, was a clear disregard of the law and jurisprudence, leading to the conclusion that the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. On the issue of the Court of Appeals ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling in Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals: This is addressed within the first ratio point, as the ruling in Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals is central to the discussion of the timeliness of the petition for certiorari and the prohibition of motions for extension of time.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari filed beyond the reglementary period, even with a motion for extension filed late or with a flimsy excuse, should be dismissed outright as the assailed judgment has become final and executory, and the appellate court loses jurisdiction to entertain the petition, except to order its dismissal. The interest of substantial justice cannot be invoked to disregard mandatory procedural rules and allow a petition that is a mere scrap of paper with no remedial value.