Curaza v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ruben Braga Curaza was employed as Butuan Plant Personnel Manager starting November 16, 1981, with Pepsi Cola Bottling Company, absorbed by Pepsi Cola Distributors on March 25, 1985, and transferred to respondent Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. (PCPPI) on July 25, 1989, at P8,695 monthly salary. PCPPI, a distinct entity, allegedly relieved him without cause, padlocked his office, subjected him to security inspections/surveillance treating him as ordinary worker, and pressured resignation, claiming constructive dismissal causing mental anguish. Respondents countered PCPPI started operations July 25, 1989; petitioner legally separated from prior entity with pay; offered rehire he accepted; he absented irregularly from September 2-16, 1989, then continuously from September 18 without leave, prompting office padlock as precaution for confidential docs; demands to return ignored post-complaint filing; absences justified dismissal under rules, denying pressure or tenure violation. Petitioner claimed sleepless nights, anxiety, humiliation entitling reinstatement, backwages, damages. Respondents prayed dismissal as relation subsists. Procedural History: On September 18, 1989, petitioner filed constructive dismissal complaint (SRAB X-10-09-00549-89) for reinstatement/backwages/damages. Labor Arbiter Amado Solamo dismissed May 25, 1990, for lack of merit but ordered 1-month salary equity aid; notice to counsel June 5, 1990. Petitioner appealed June 15, 1990 (SRAB stamp); manifested August 13, 1990, as co-counsel with Atty. Battad for notices. NLRC (5th Div.) dismissed appeal April 29, 1991, as late (erroneously June 18); counsel received May 8, 1991. Petitioner MR August 12, 1991; NLRC denied October 23, 1991, as late, citing counsel negligence. Certiorari to SC. The Petition: Assigned NLRC grave abuse: (1) dismissing appeal as late despite June 15 filing post-June 5 notice, violating due process sans personal service; reglementary from later of party/counsel receipt per NLRC Rule XII §4(d); Entry of Judgment sans personal service. (2) Dismissing sans merits. Sub-issues: LA erred fact-findings, abused discretion, copied pleadings verbatim violating Rule VII §15; LA Solamo lacked jurisdiction post-reassignment (AO 04-02-90); biased from prior reversal. Even if appeal late, merits: disregard evidence, etc.
Issue(s)
Whether NLRC gravely abused discretion dismissing appeal as untimely despite evidence of June 15, 1990 filing. Whether NLRC gravely abused dismissing MR as late, insisting personal service required despite counsel receipt May 8, 1991, and 'co-counsel' status. Whether LA Solamo validly decided despite alleged reassignment.
Ruling
Petition dismissed. Appeal timely (June 15 post-June 5), correcting NLRC; but MR late (August 12 post-May 8 counsel receipt), final/executory. No personal service needed; notice to counsel binds. LA Solamo authorized via uncontroverted detail explanation.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Appeal Timeliness): Records confirm counsel received LA decision June 5, 1990; appeal stamped received SRAB June 15, 1990 (rollo p.155), within 10 days under NLRC Rule III §5(a) counting from counsel receipt. Respondents' June 18 claim unsupported; NLRC erred factually but no grave abuse reversal needed as petition fails overall. Petitioner claimed personal non-service violated due process, invoking Rule XII §4(d) as requiring party service; Court rejected—§4 clerical duties, not service mode; Rule I §3 mandates counsel receipt for periods. Citing UERM Employees Union-FFW v. Minister (177 SCRA 165), notices to counsel at address bind party. Thus, timely perfected. On Issue 2 (MR Lateness & Notice): Counsel Battad received NLRC April 29, 1991 Resolution May 8, 1991 (delivery receipt); MR August 12 (3 months), beyond 10-calendar days Rule VII §14 (oath, palpable error, one only, proof service). Petitioner's August 2 personal receipt irrelevant—notice to counsel binds (Rule I §3; Rules Court Rule 13 §2: service on attorneys unless ordered). 'Collaboration' manifestation (Aug 13, 1990) didn't substitute; Battad no withdrawal; suppletory Rule 13 §2 allows service on one. Battad affidavit (secretary filed away; out-of-town for father—died July 24) not excusable negligence; lawyers must systemize notices (Republic v. Arro, 150 SCRA 625); client bears counsel fault (Que v. CA, 101 SCRA 13; Villa Rhecor v. NLRC). NLRC ratiocination approved verbatim. No merits review. On Issue 3 (LA Authority): Uncontroverted Solicitor explanation: despite AO 04-02-90 reassigning Solamo SRAB X to XI, he unreported till late May 1990 telegram, on temporary detail SRAB X when deciding May 25. Valid jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
Under NLRC Rules, the reglementary period for appeal or motion for reconsideration runs from receipt by the counsel of record, not the party litigant. Service on one counsel suffices even if the party appears 'in collaboration' without formal withdrawal by the original counsel. The negligence of counsel in handling or notifying the client of notices binds the client, as clients bear consequences of counsel choice; excuses like personal family issues do not toll periods. Rules of Court apply suppletorily absent specific NLRC provisions. Thus, late motions render resolutions final and executory, precluding merits review despite substantive claims like constructive dismissal.