HEAVY WORKLOAD OF COUNSEL IS NOT A SPECIAL OR COMPELLING REASON TO JUSTIFY EXTENSION TO FILE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

Heavy workload of counsel is hardly a compelling or meritorious reason for availing a motion for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari.

Thus, in an August 2017 case, the Supreme Court held as follows:

Adtel, Inc. vs. Valdez
G.R. No. 189942, August 9, 2017

Facts:

Adtel, Inc. (Adtel) is engaged in the distribution of telephone units, gadgets, equipment, and allied products. Adtel hired Respondent Marijoy A. Valdez (Mrs. Valdez) to work as an accountant for the company.

Adtel promoted Mrs. Valdez as the company’s purchasing and logistics supervisor. Adtel then entered into a dealership agreement with Mrs. Valdez’s husband, Angel Valdez (Mr. Valdez), to distribute Adtel’s wideband VHF-UHF television antennas.

Subsequently, Mr. Valdez filed a civil case against Adtel for specific performance and damages for the execution of the terms of the dealership agreement. Mr. Valdez also instituted a criminal complaint for libel against Adtel ‘s chairman, president, and officers.

Thereafter, Adtel issued a memorandum directing Mrs. Valdez to show cause in writing why she should not be terminated for conflict of interest and/or serious breach of trust and confidence. The memorandum stated that the filing of cases by Mrs. Valdez’s husband created a conflict of interest since Mrs. Valdez had access to vital information that can be used against Adtel.

Labor Code 2018 Edition (re-numbered and updated) by Atty. Villanueva now available.

Mrs. Valdez was placed under preventive suspension by Adtel. Mrs. Valdez denied the charges of Adtel. Mrs. Valdez contended that the cases had nothing to do with her being an employee of Adtel and had not affected her performance in the company.

Adtel terminated Mrs. Valdez from the company. Mrs. Valdez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter. Mrs. Valdez alleged that she did not violate any company rule or policy; neither was she guilty of fraud, nor willful breach of trust. Mrs. Valdez contended that she was illegally dismissed without just cause and was entitled to separation pay, backwages, and damages.

LA Ruling:

The Labor Arbiter dismissed Mrs. Valdez’s complaint for illegal dismissal.

The Labor Arbiter found that there existed a conflict of interest between Mrs. Valdez and Adtel. The Labor Arbiter ruled that Mrs. Valdez was not an ordinary rank-and-file employee but a managerial employee with a fiduciary duty to protect the interest of Adtel.

The Labor Arbiter held that the civil and criminal cases initiated by Mrs. Valdez’s husband indubitably created a conflict of interest that was a just cause for her dismissal by Adtel.

Mrs. Valdez appealed to the NLRC.

NLRC Ruling:

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

The NLRC ruled that Adtel illegally dismissed Mrs. Valdez. The NLRC held that Adtel failed to substantially prove the existence of an act or omission personally attributable to the Mrs. Valdez to serve as a just cause to terminate her employment.

Adtel filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the NLRC.

Adtel received the NLRC Resolution on 5 February 2009. On 7 April 2009, the last day for filing its petition for certiorari with the CA, Adtel filed a motion for extension of time with the CA.

On 22 April 2009, fifteen (15) days after the last day for filing or the 751h day, Adtel filed its petition for certiorari with the CA.

CA Ruling:

The CA denied the motion for extension and dismissed Adtel’s petition for certiorari for being filed beyond the reglementary period.

The CA ruled that Adtel had until 7 April 2009 to file its petition for certiorari. Instead of filing the petition for certiorari, Adtel filed a motion for extension of time on 7 April 2009 and subsequently filed its petition for certiorari on 22 April 2009, the last day of the extended period prayed for by Adtel. The CA held that the reglementary period to file a petition for certiorari can no.longer be extended pursuant to A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC which amended Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Adtel filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied on 8 October 2009.

Issue/s:

Whether or not heavy workload of a counsel is a special or compelling reason to justify extension for the filing of petition for certiorari with the CA.

SC Ruling:

The SC denied the petition.

The SC held that A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC states that in cases where a motion for reconsideration was timely filed, the filing of a petition for certiorari questioning the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration must be made not later than sixty (60) days from the notice of the denial of the motion.

In Laguna Metts Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, (611 Phil. 530 (2009), this Court ruled that the 60-day period was non-extendible and the CA no longer had the authority to grant the motion for extension in view of A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC which amended Section 4 of Rule 65.

Citing Domdom vs. Third and Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan, the SC held that the strict observance of the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari is not absolute. Absent any express prohibition under Rule 65, a motion for extension is still permitted, subject to the Court’s sound discretion.

Citing further the case of Labao vs. Flores (649 Phil. 213 (2010), the SC recognized that the extension of the 60-day period may be granted by the Court in the presence of special or compelling circumstances provided that there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his or her failure to comply with the rules.

Likewise, in Mid-Islands Power Generation vs. Court of Appeals (683 Phil. 325 (2012), the SC held that a motion for extension was allowed in petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 subject to the Court’s sound discretion and only under exceptional or meritorious cases.

The SC concluded that in filing petitions for certiorari under Rule 65, a motion for extension is a prohibited pleading. However in exceptional or meritorious cases, the Court may grant an extension anchored on special or compelling reasons.

Adtel’s reason for extension is its counsel’s heavy workload. In Yutingco vs. Court of Appeals (435 Phil. 83 (2002), the SC held that the circumstance of heavy workload alone, absent a compelling or special reason, is not a sufficient justification to allow an extension of the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari.

In Thenamaris Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, the SC held that the heavy workload of counsel is hardly a compelling or meritorious reason for availing a motion for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari. Similarly, in Mid-Islands Power, the heavy workload and the resignation of the lawyer handling the case are insufficient reasons to justify the relaxation of the procedural rules under Rule 65.

In both Thenamaris and Mid-Islands Power, the motions for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari and held that the heavy workload of counsel was not a compelling reason contemplated by the Rules of Court.