- Have any questions?
- (02) 8579-9170
THE 60 DAY PERIOD TO FILE CERTIORARI WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS IS RECKONED BY RECEIPT OF COUNSEL AND NOT OF CLIENT
Petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within sixty (60) days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration. There can no longer be any extension of the 60-day period within which to file a petition? for certiorari save in exceptional or meritorious cases anchored on special or compelling reasons.
The period is reckoned from receipt of counsel and not of client. Thus, the SC ruled in the following case:
Puregold Price Club, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Renato M. Cruz, Jr.
G.R. No. 244374, February 15, 2022
Petition for certiorari; As the Rule now stands, petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within sixty (60) days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration; There can no longer be any extension of the 60-day period within which to file a petition for certiorari, save in exceptional or meritorious cases anchored on special or compelling reasons; Receipt of Decision; Reckoning of period to perfect legal remedy; Counsel-of-record; When a party is represented by counsel of record, service of orders and notices must be made upon such counsel; Notice to the client or to any other lawyer other than the counsel of record, is not notice in law; While decisions, resolutions, or orders are served on both parties and their counsel/representative, for purposes of appeal, the period shall be counted from receipt of such decisions, resolutions, or orders by the counsel representative of record
Facts:
On January 16, 2013 Renato M. Cruz (Renato) was appointed Renato as store officer/manager at Puregold Extra Ampid (Puregold Extra) in San Mateo, Rizal. Renato’s tasks include the activation of the Intruder Alarm System (IAS) located in the treasury office of the branch before store closure and its deactivation upon store opening. The IAS was programmed to send message alerts on the mobile phones of Renato and two other officers whenever an intruder is detected in the premises. Among them, Renato was the principal officer expected to respond when the IAS sent alerts because he lived nearest to the branch.
On March 16, 2015 at 1 :23 a.m., the IAS sounded an intruder alarm and sent messages to Renato and the two other officers but none of them arrived. This prompted security guard Michael Mejaran (SG Mejaran) to send text messages to Renato and the two other officers. Still, no one responded. At 2:35 a.m., the alarm sounded for the second time and message alerts were sent to the phones of Renato and the two other officers followed by text messages from SG Mejaran. Again, no one answered. At around 5: 13 a.m., Renato arrived and asked the guard to open the store. Renato inspected the store interiors but did not see any intruder. Thus, Renato deactivated the alarm. On his way out, Renato took four (4) plastic pails in stock at the store and brought them home for his personal use.
On May 15, 2015, PPCI’s Human Resource Manager Jona Pinky J. Cafiete (HR Manager Cafiete) served Renato with a notice to explain why he should not be dismissed for failing to promptly respond to the IAS and for stealing/taking the plastic pails out of the store. In his reply, Renato admitted the receipt of alerts and text messages but he only saw them after waking up at 5:00 a.m. Anent the alleged stealing, Renato explained that he merely borrowed the pails because there was a scheduled water interruption in their area. Renato even informed SG Mejaran that he took the pails. After the administrative hearing, the PPCI served Renato a notice of termination dated June 16, 2015 for gross and serious omission to do vital management duty and responsibility, serious and willful breach of trust, abuse of position, and
Acquire Mastery of HR/Labor Doctrines, Rules and Principles with Atty. Elvin’s HR Bundle Books at Discounted Rate
stealing.
On February 1, 2016, Renato filed a request for assistance under the Single Entry Approach (SEnA) Program of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) indicating Puregold Extra and Noel Groyon (Groyon) as respondents.
However, the parties failed to reach an ainicable settlement. On April 8, 2016, Renato filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Puregold Extra, Lucio Co (Co) and Groyon before the Labor Arbiter (LA).
LA Ruling:
The LA held that Renato was illegally dismissed.
The LA rendered a decision based solely on Renato’s position paper because the respondents failed to appear. The LA held that Renato was illegally dismissed and ordered PPCI to pay his back wages and separation pay.
On July 15, 2016, Renato moved for the issuance of a writ of execution alleging that the LA’s ruling becaine final and executory after PPCI received a copy of the judgment on July 1, 2016 and did not appeal. On even date, the LA issued a notice of pre-execution conference.
On July 18, 2016, PPCI moved to annul the LA’s decision claiming that it was not properly joined as a respondent in the complaint and did not receive summons. As such, the LA did not acquire jurisdiction over PPC] and any decision against it is void.
On July 25, 2016, PPCI submitted a supplemental motion with Groyon’ s affidavit denying receipt of summons. On July 29, 2016, the LA noted the motions without action and pointed out that PPCI’s proper remedy is to appeal with the NLRC.
Accordingly, PPCI filed on August 8, 2016 a petition to annul the LA’s Decision and Order before the NLRC docketed as LER Case No. 08-216-16. PPCI maintained that it had no knowledge of Renato’s complaint for illegal dismissal until the receipt of his motion for issuance of writ of execution. PPCI reiterated that it did not receive summons or a copy of the LA’s decision. Renato misled the LA and fraudulently imp leaded Puregold Extra as his employer, which is different from PPCI. Lastly, PPCI prayed the case be remanded to the LA for mandatory conciliation.
In contrast, Renato denied that he committed fraud and explained that he was working at Puregold Extra so he impleaded it as his employer. In any case, the service of summons upon Puregold Extra is sufficient to acquire jurisdiction over PPCI given that its representatives attended SEnA conferences.
NLRC Ruling:
The NLRC remanded the case for further proceedings for failure of the LA to acquire jurisdicti0n over PPCI due to improper service of summons.
Dissatisfied, Renato sought reconsideration and the inhibition of the members of division. On October 28, 2016, the NLRC denied Renato’s motions. On March 13, 2017, Renato elevated the case through a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) docketed.
Renato insisted that the service of SEnA notices to the address of Puregold Extra in San Mateo, Rizal was sufficient to vest jurisdiqtion over PPCI. In his petition, Renato stated that he received on January 12, 2017 the NLRC Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration, hence, the petition for certiorari was timely filed on March 13, 2017.
Meantime, the LA issued summons dated March 28, 2017 and served it to PPCI’ s address at Paco, Manila in compliance with the NLRC’ s Resolutions dated September 8, 2016 and October 28, 2016 which remanded the case for mandatory conciliation.
Yet, the parties failed to arrive at any settlement and were ordered to submit their position papers. On January 30, 2018, the LA ruled that PPCI dismissed Renato for just cause with observance of procedural due process. Renato appealed to the NLRC but was denied. The NLRC decision became final and executory absent a timely appeal.
CA Ruling:
On the other hand, the CA gave due course to Renato’s petition for certiorari. On August 24, 2018, the CA held that there was substantial compliance with the rules on service of summons and that PPCI failed to establish any fraud, which supposedly prevented it from appearing before the LA proceedings.
The CA also ratiocinated that PPCI owned and operated Puregold Exitra. Relatively, it would be absurd for Puregold Extra not to inform PPCI about Renato’s complaint for illegal dismissal. Lastly, the CA ruled that PPCI cannot use technicalities to escape the negative consequences of an adverse decision.
On September 6, 2018, PPCI moved for reconsideration. On January 29, 2019, the CA denied PPCI’s motion. On February 13, 2019, PPCI received the CA’s Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration and has fifteen (15) days or until February 28, 2019 to file a petition for review. On February 19, 2019, PPCI moved for an additional period of thirty (30) days from February 28, 2019 or until March 30, 2019 within which to file a petition for review. Also, PPCI paid the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs. On March 15, 2019, however, PCCI filed a petition for certiorari.
Mainly, PPCI asserts that the CA’s Decision dated August 24, 2018 and Resolution dated January 29, 2019 in CA-G.R. SP No. 149917 was rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. PPCI avers that the CA gravely erred in giving due course to Renato’s petition for certiorari despite being filed out of time or beyond the 60-day reglementary period.
PPCI explains that the Bailiffs Return showed that the counsel of Renato received on December 29, 2016 the NLRC Resolution dated October 28, 2016 denying his motion for reconsideration. As such, Renato had until February 27, 2017 to avail a petition for certiorari. However, Renato filed the petition for certiorari only on March 13, 2017 or fourteen (14) days late.
In his comment, Renato contends that he timely filed his petition for certiorari within the 60-day reglementary period reckoned from his receipt on January 12, 2017 of the NLRC Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration. Moreover, Renato insists that PPCI was validly served with summons through Puregold Extra.
Issue/s:
Whether or not receipt of counsel or receipt of the client is the reckoning period for determining the timeliness of the filing of petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals
Whether or not a petition for certiorari filed and reckoned from the time of receipt of the client and not of counsel is timely
Whether or not the 60-day period to file certiorari is extendible
SC Ruling:
The SC found the petition of PPCI meritorious.
As the Rule now stands, petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within sixty (60) days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration. There can no longer be any extension of the 60-day period within which to file a petition? for certiorari save in exceptional or meritorious cases anchored on special or compelling reasons.
Contrary to Renato’s theory, the reglementary period to avail the remedy of certiorari must be reckoned
on December 29, 2016 or the date his counsel received the NLRC Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, and not on February 12, 2017 when he allegedly received the assailed resolution. To be sure, the records reveal that Renato’s counsel was validly notified of the assailed NLRQ Resolution on December 29, 2016.
Verily, when a party is represented by counsel of record, service of orders and notices must be made upon such counsel. Notice to the client or to any other lawyer other than the counsel of record, is not notice in law. Moreover, while decisions, resolutions, or orders are served on both parties and their counsel/representative, for purposes of appeal, the period shall be counted from receipt of such decisions, resolutions, or orders by the counsel representative of record.
Likewise, Section 4(b ), Rule III of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure provides that for purposes of appeal, the period shall be counted from receipt of the decisions, resolutions, or orders by the counsel or representative of record.
Applying these precepts, Renato had sixty (60) days counted from the date his counsel received on December 29, 2016 the NLRC Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration or until February 27, 2017 within which to avail a petition for certiorari. As intimated earlier, Renato filed his petition for certiorari before the CA only on March 13, 201 7 or fourteen ( 14) days beyond the reglementary period. Notably, Renato neither moved for an extension of time nor presented any exceptional or meritorious circumstance to exempt him from the strict application of the 60-day period rule.
Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin 
Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:
Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:
Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing