Calleon v. HZSC Realty Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, former employees of HZSC Realty Corporation (HZSC), filed complaints for illegal constructive dismissal, non-payment of salary, 13th month pay, and separation pay, along with moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. The dispute arose from HZSC's failure to rehire them after a temporary business shutdown due to financial losses. The Labor Arbiter found HZSC and its President, petitioner Michael Adriano Calleon, guilty of illegal dismissal for failing to comply with procedural requirements and ordered them to pay the respondents. Procedural History: HZSC and petitioner appealed the Labor Arbiter's decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which dismissed their appeal and subsequently denied their motions for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking to be absolved of liability. The CA dismissed this petition for failing to comply with the required contents and accompanying documents. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the CA's dismissal was also denied by the CA for being belatedly filed. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's resolution that denied his motion for reconsideration as belatedly filed. He argues that his motion for reconsideration was timely filed, as it was based on the date his counsel received notice of the CA's dismissal, not his personal receipt. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the CA's resolution and remanding the case to the CA for a resolution on the merits of the motion for reconsideration and the amended petition for certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the motion for reconsideration for having been belatedly filed. Whether petitioner Michael Adriano Calleon is solidarily liable with HZSC for the money claims of the individual respondents.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Resolution dated November 28, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP. No. 147486 is SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the CA which is hereby DIRECTED to resolve petitioner Michael Adriano Calleon's motion for reconsideration, with motion to admit the Amended Petition for Certiorari. The Temporary Restraining Order issued on January 25, 2017 REMAINS in full force and effect, until further orders.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration: The Court reiterated that service of court resolutions upon a party represented by counsel must be made upon the counsel, as provided in Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. The reason for this rule is that parties generally lack the formal education or knowledge of procedural rules, and it is more orderly for courts to deal with the counsel. In this case, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration based on the petitioner's personal receipt of the resolution on October 5, 2016. However, the CA later received a reply from the Postmaster indicating that the petitioner's counsel, Atty. Santos, received the registered mail containing the resolution on October 11, 2016. This date is crucial because the reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration is fifteen (15) days from receipt. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration, filed on October 26, 2016, was within the fifteen-day period, making it timely filed. The CA erred in reckoning the period from the petitioner's personal receipt instead of his counsel's receipt. On the substantive merits of the petition and the issue of solidary liability: The Court noted that the CA had dismissed the petition for certiorari on procedural grounds without resolving the substantive issues. Since the motion for reconsideration was found to be timely filed, the CA is now directed to resolve the motion on its merits, including the petitioner's Amended Petition for Certiorari which purportedly rectified the procedural defects. The Court also acknowledged that the issue of petitioner's solidary liability with HZSC for the money claims is yet to be resolved by the CA. Consequently, the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) previously issued by the Supreme Court, enjoining the NLRC from implementing its decision, remains in effect until further orders.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration is considered timely filed if it is filed within the reglementary period, which is reckoned from the date of receipt of the court's resolution by the counsel of record, not by the party himself, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court.