Pagdanganan v. Sarmiento
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Florentino P. Sarmiento (Sarmiento), a seafarer, was hired as Chief Mate by Sea Gem Maritime International, Inc. (Sea Gem) on May 8, 2008. His contract was extended, and he was later transferred to another vessel. On January 14, 2009, while docked in Nigeria, Sarmiento experienced a loss of strength in his left arm and fingers, leading to a diagnosis of Mild Cardiovascular Stroke, Disused Atrophy of the Left Hand, and Hypertension. He was repatriated on January 18, 2009, and subsequently filed a complaint against Sea Gem, its foreign principal, and several officers and directors, including herein petitioners Atty. Fortunato Pagdanganan, Jr., Atty. Abigail D. Suarez, and Eugenio A. Villanueva, for unpaid salaries, disability benefits, sickness allowance, and medical expenses. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) found petitioners, among others, jointly and severally liable for Sarmiento's money claims, citing Section 10 of RA 8042. Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), arguing they were no longer connected with Sea Gem when Sarmiento's cause of action arose. The NLRC reversed the LA's decision, absolving petitioners from liability based on their non-connection with Sea Gem at the time of the cause of action and a POEA letter stating they were not recognized as directors. Sarmiento moved for reconsideration, which was denied. Sarmiento, through counsel Atty. Jay T. Borromeo, was notified of the NLRC Resolution on January 12, 2011. Sarmiento later filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), claiming he was personally notified only on February 10, 2011. The CA reinstated the LA Decision, finding petitioners jointly and severally liable, reasoning that corporate officers acting during the employment contract remain liable. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners seek the reversal of the CA Decision and Resolution, arguing that the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC and in reinstating the LA Decision, primarily contending that Sarmiento's petition for certiorari before the CA was filed out of time, thus the CA did not acquire jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in absolving petitioners from liability, considering the timeliness of Sarmiento's petition challenging the NLRC Decision. Whether the petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals was filed within the reglementary period.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Court reversed and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Decision and Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission. The Court held that the petition for certiorari filed before the CA was filed out of time, thus the CA did not acquire jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and timeliness: The Court found that the CA did not acquire jurisdiction over Sarmiento's petition because it was filed twenty-five (25) days beyond the sixty (60) day reglementary period, which began on January 12, 2011, when Sarmiento's counsel received the NLRC Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. The deadline was March 13, 2011, but the petition was filed on April 7, 2011. Notice to counsel is binding on the client, and the CA's review of the NLRC's ruling was invalid due to the late filing. The CA's reinstatement of the LA Decision and finding petitioners liable constituted an error, as the NLRC's decision had become final and executory. The Court cited GCP-Manny Transport Services, Inc. v. Hon. Principe to support the principle that notice to counsel is notice to the client. On the timeliness of the petition for certiorari: The Court reiterated the rule under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended, that an aggrieved party has sixty (60) days from receipt of the assailed decision, order, or resolution within which to file a petition for certiorari. Since the CA did not acquire jurisdiction over Sarmiento's petition due to its late filing, it could not validly review the NLRC's ruling. Therefore, the CA gravely abused its discretion in disregarding the procedural infirmity of the petition before it.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari filed beyond the sixty (60)-day reglementary period from notice of the assailed resolution, reckoned from the date of receipt by the counsel of record, does not acquire jurisdiction, rendering the assailed ruling final and unassailable.