Cervantes v. City Service
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Francis C. Cervantes filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries and wages, overtime pay, holiday pay, holiday premium, rest day premium, service incentive leave, separation pay, ECOLA, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees against respondents City Service Corporation and Valentin Prieto, Jr. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding that Cervantes refused to work after being transferred to another client of City Service, and that employees of manpower agencies assigned to clients do not become employees of the client. Cervantes' appeal and subsequent motion for reconsideration were denied by the NLRC. 2. Procedural History: Following the dismissal of his complaint by the Labor Arbiter and the denial of his subsequent motions by the NLRC, Cervantes filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The CA dismissed Cervantes' petition for certiorari, ruling that it was filed out of time. The CA determined that the 60-day period for filing the petition should have been counted from July 30, 2009, when Cervantes' mother received the NLRC Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration, making the October 7, 2009 filing nine days late. Cervantes' motion for reconsideration of this dismissal was also denied by the CA. 3. The Petition: This case reaches the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, assailing the CA's Resolutions that dismissed Cervantes' petition for certiorari for being filed out of time and denied his motion for reconsideration. Cervantes argues that the CA erred in reckoning the period for filing the petition for certiorari from the date his mother received the NLRC Resolution, instead of from the date his counsel of record was notified. He also contends that the CA erred in dismissing the petition for failure to attach certain documents and in affirming the NLRC's decision on the merits of the illegal dismissal claim.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed an error of law for reckoning the period for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 from receipt of the assailed Resolution of the NLRC dated July 22, 2009. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed an error of law for ruling that the said petition should have been dismissed anyway because petitioner failed to attach copies of respondent's Reply Memorandum and Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration filed with the NLRC. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed an error of law in ruling that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion for sustaining the decision of the Labor Arbiter that petitioner was not illegally dismissed.
Ruling
The petition is partly meritorious. The Court ruled that the petition for certiorari was timely filed with the CA. However, the Court found no reversible error committed by the NLRC concerning the merits of the case, affirming the dismissal of Cervantes' complaint for illegal dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition for certiorari: The Court held that the period for filing a petition for certiorari from the NLRC to the Court of Appeals should be reckoned from the date the counsel of record received the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. The Court emphasized that notice to the counsel of record is notice to the party, and service upon any person other than the counsel of record is not legally effective. In this case, the NLRC furnished a copy of its July 29, 2009 Resolution to Atty. Occena, petitioner's counsel, on November 19, 2009. Therefore, the 60-day period for filing the petition for certiorari should be counted from November 19, 2009. Since the petition was filed on October 7, 2009, it was filed within the prescribed period. The CA erred in counting the period from the date petitioner's mother received the resolution. On the failure to attach certain documents: The Court did not explicitly rule on this issue in the provided text, but it was raised as an issue by the petitioner. However, the Court's ultimate decision to deny the petition on the merits rendered this procedural issue moot. On the merits of the illegal dismissal claim: The Court found no reversible error committed by the NLRC. It affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that Cervantes was not illegally dismissed. The records showed that Cervantes was relieved from his post due to poor work performance and attitude. Although he was removed from UST, he refused to accept reassignment to Mercury Drug Fairview despite notices. His refusal to report back to work constituted absence without official leave (AWOL), which negates the allegation of illegal dismissal. The findings of fact made by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed by the NLRC are binding if supported by substantial evidence.
Main Doctrine
For purposes of appeal from the NLRC to the Court of Appeals, the period to file a petition for certiorari is reckoned from the date the counsel of record receives the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, not from the date a party's mother receives the same.