Concejero v. Philippine National Bank
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Dennis M. Concejero, formerly the Assistant Vice-President and Head of the Branch Operations Review Department (BORD) of Philippine National Bank (PNB), was charged by the bank's Administrative Board with abuse of authority, concealment of knowledge of fraud, willful breach of trust, and gross misconduct. These charges stemmed from his alleged failure to properly address irregular lending activities at a branch, despite his supervisory role in reviewing compliance and eradicating fraud. Following an administrative hearing, PNB found Concejero guilty of willful breach of trust resulting in loss of confidence and dismissed him from service. Procedural History: Following his dismissal, Concejero filed a complaint for illegal suspension and dismissal, seeking various monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter ruled against him, finding the dismissal for a just and valid cause and that due process was afforded. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision on appeal, holding that Concejero's concealment of the irregular lending activities constituted a loss of trust and confidence. Concejero's motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC. Subsequently, he filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) to challenge the NLRC's decision. The Petition: Petitioner Concejero filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the NLRC's decision. Due to a miscalculation of the reglementary period by his counsel, an initial motion for extension was filed, followed by a manifestation correcting the error and asserting the correct 60-day period under Rule 65. Despite the timely filing of the petition within the 60-day period, the CA initially dismissed the case, later noting the manifestation and motion, and ultimately denying reconsideration. This Supreme Court petition for certiorari argues that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion by dismissing the case prematurely and failing to give due course to the petition filed within the prescribed 60-day period.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed petitioner's appeal via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing CA-G.R. SP No. 137479 before the lapse of the sixty (60) day reglementary period to file a petition under Rule 65. Whether the Court of Appeals committed patent grave abuse of discretion when it noted petitioner's Manifestation and Motion and ordered the entry of the Resolution of November 3, 2014. Whether the Court of Appeals committed patent grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration despite his petition being filed on time. Whether the Court of Appeals committed patent grave abuse of discretion by evading performance of a positive duty.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated November 3, 2014, June 18, 2015, and March 4, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 137479 are annulled and set aside. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings with dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the petition for certiorari by the Court of Appeals: The Court held that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the case on November 3, 2014. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 has a reglementary period of sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution being assailed. In this case, the petitioner received the NLRC Resolution on September 23, 2014, giving him until November 22, 2014, to file his petition. The dismissal on November 3, 2014, occurred before this period expired. On the petitioner's timely filing of the petition: The Court emphasized that even if the petitioner's initial motion for extension was based on a mistaken belief about the period, he ultimately filed his petition for certiorari on November 24, 2014, which was the next working day after the 60-day period expired (November 22, 2014, a Saturday). This filing was within the reglementary period prescribed by Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as extended by Section 1, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court. On the Court of Appeals' subsequent resolutions: The Court found that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion by merely noting the petitioner's Manifestation and Motion, which explained the oversight regarding the filing period, and by ordering the entry of the earlier erroneous dismissal. The appellate court should have recalled its November 3, 2014 Resolution once it was aware that the petition was filed within the 60-day period. On the denial of the motion for reconsideration: The denial of the petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the June 18, 2015 Resolution was also deemed an abuse of discretion, as it failed to address the fact that the petition was timely filed and that the earlier dismissal was erroneous. The appellate court's insistence on the finality of its November 3, 2014 Resolution, despite the timely filing of the petition, effectively deprived the petitioner of his right to due process and to have his case heard on the merits. On the Court of Appeals' evasion of duty: The Court concluded that the actions of the Court of Appeals constituted an evasion of its positive duty to act on the petition within the bounds of the Rules of Court and the Constitution. By dismissing the case prematurely and refusing to reconsider its actions, the appellate court failed to perform its adjudicatory function.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismisses a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the lapse of the 60-day reglementary period provided by the Rules of Court, even if the petitioner had previously sought an extension that was not yet due.