PETITION FOR CERTIORARI CANNOT BE DISMISSED FOR BEING FILED BEYOND THE PERIOD PRAYED FOR IN THE MOTION FOR EXTENSION IF IT IS STILL WITHIN THE 60-DAY REGLEMENTARY PERIOD

Petition for certiorari shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution.

In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion.

Where the party sought extension to file said petition but failed to do so on the date prayed for, the petition filed should not be dismissed if still within the reglementary period of sixty days.

Thus, the SC held in the September 11, 2017 case as follows:

Dennis M. Concejero vs. Court of Appeals and Philippine National Bank
G.R. No. 223262, September 11, 2017

Facts:

Petitioner Dennis M. Concejero (Concejero) was the Assistant Vice-President and Head of the Branch Operations Review Department (BORD) of respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB). As head of the BORD, Concejero was responsible for the overall review of compliance of domestic branches with internal control policies, established procedures and guidelines of the bank, among others.

Concejero’s primary mandate was to eradicate fraud and prosecute fraudsters. He supervised 26 Branch Operations Review Officers in their operations review of all branches, gave authority to convene the Regional Fact-Finding Committees, reviewed the reports and indorsed fraud to legal and audit.

In a Memorandum, respondent PNB, through its Administrative Board, charged Concejero with several acts constituting abuse of authority, concealment of knowledge of commission of fraud, deceit or other forms of irregularity, willful breach of trust resulting in loss of confidence and gross misconduct. Concejero submitted his Answer to the charge.

Concejero was placed under preventive suspension for 30 days. PNB’s Administrative Board conducted an administrative hearing where both Concejero and his counsel appeared. PNB, through its Chief Employee Relations Officer, issued an implementing Order on the administrative charge for abuse of authority, concealment, willful breach of trust and confidence against Concejero. In the said Order, the Administrative Board’s Decision was quoted in its entirety and Concejero was further informed that the Board found him guilty of willful breach of trust resulting in loss of confidence and he was meted the penalty of dismissal.

Concejero filed a Complaint for illegal suspension and dismissal and prayed for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and payment of his full backwages, holiday pay, 13th month pay, allowances, bonuses, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

LA Ruling:

The Labor Arbiter ruled that Concejero’s dismissal was for a just and valid cause and that he was afforded due process. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.

Concejero appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

NLRC Ruling:

The NLRC denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

Concejero’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution. Concejero received a copy of the Resolution on September 23, 2014.

On October 8, 2014, or 21 days after receipt of the NLRC Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration, Concejero filed with the Court of Appeals a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari.

CA Ruling:

Concejero stated in his motion for extension that he received the NLRC Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration on September 23, 2014 and that he had until October 8, 2014 (or 15 days) to appeal the Resolution to the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari. He prayed that he be granted 15 days extension or until October 23, 2014 within which to file his petition for certiorari with the appellate court.

On November 3, 2014, the Court of Appeals promulgated a Resolution dismissing the case stating that given the absence of the appropriate Petition for Certiorari, in keeping with counsel for Concejero’s Motion for Extension therefor until October 23, 2014.

Meanwhile, on October 23, 2014, Concejero’s counsel filed a Manifestation and Motion stating that in filing the Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari on October 8, 2014, he overlooked Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which provides a period of 60 days to file a petition for certiorari. Hence, his last day to file the petition is on November 22, 2014. He prayed that he be allowed to file his petition on or before November 22, 2014.

On November 24, 2014, Concejero filed his Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. On January 27, 2015, the Court of Appeals promulgated a Resolution referring the Manifestation and Motion to the private respondent for Comment thereon in ten (10) days from notice.

On June 18, 2015, the Court of Appeals promulgated a Resolution which noted counsel for Concejero’s Manifestation and Motion, and irrespective of counsel for respondent PNB’ s averments on the Comment/Opposition to Manifestation and Motion. Accordingly, and by reason of the foregoing details, the CA ordered that the Entry of the Resolution of November 3, 2014 be effected by the Division Clerk of Court.

On June 18, 2015, the Resolution dated November 3, 2015 became final and executory and was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgment. Concejero filed a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated June 18, 2015, which motion was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated March 4, 2016.

Issue/s:

Whether or not the failure of a party to file a petition within the date set in the motion for extension filed shall cause the dismissal of the petition although said date is still within the reglementary period to file said petition.

SC Ruling:

The SC granted the petition.

The SC observed that Concejero received notice of the NLRC Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration on September 23, 2014. On October 8, 2014, or 21 days after receipt of the NLRC Resolution, Concejero filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari, asking for an extension of 15 days or until October 23, 2014 to file his petition.

Concejero had 60 days to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Since Concejero received the NLRC Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration on September 23, 2014, he had until November 22, 2014 (the 60th day) within which to file his petition.

However, November 22, 2014 fell on a Saturday; hence, Concejero had until the next working day or until November 24, 2014 (Monday) to file the petition under Section 1, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court.

The SC noted that the Court of Appeals dismissed the case because Concejero failed to file his petition for certiorari on October 23, 2014 as prayed for in his earlier motion for extension, even if the 60-day period to file the petition under Section 4, Rule 65 had not lapsed.

The SC found that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the case on November 3, 2014 before the 60-day period to file the petition for certiorari expired.

Even if Concejero, who sought an extension of 15 days, or until October 23, 2014 to file the petition for certiorari, failed to file the petition on October 23, 2014, the case was not yet dismissible because Concejero was entitled to a 60-day period within which to file the petition and had until November 24, 2014 to file it. The records show that Concejero timely filed his petition on November 24, 2014.

Labor Code 2018 Edition (re-numbered per DOLE D.A. 01, Series of 2015 pursuant to R.A. 10151)