Puregold Price Club, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Renato M. Cruz, Jr.,
G.R. No. 244374, February 15, 2022
Facts:
1. Puregold Price Club, Inc. (PPCI) hired Renato M. Cruz, Jr. as a probationary store head. Then PPCI appointed Renato as store officer/manager at Puregold Extra Ampid.
2. 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.
3. PPCI's 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. After the administrative hearing, the PPCI served Renato a notice of termination for gross and serious omission to do vital management duty and responsibility, serious and willful breach of trust, abuse of position, and stealing.
4. On February 1, 2016, Renato filed a request for assistance under the Single Entry Approach (SEnA) Program of the NLRC indicating Puregold Extra.
5. On May 31, 2016, 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.
6. On July 15, 2016, Renato moved for the issuance of a writ of execution alleging that the LA's ruling became final and executory after PPCI received a copy of the judgment on July 1, 2016 and did not appeal.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Accordingly, PPCI filed on August 8, 2016 a petition to annul the LA's Decision and Order before the NLRC.
10. On September 8, 2016, the NLRC remanded the case for further proceedings for failure of the LA to acquire jurisdicti0n over PPCI due to improper service of summons.
11. Dissatisfied, Renato sought reconsideration. On October 28, 2016, the NLRC denied Renato's motions.
12. On March 13, 2017, Renato elevated the case through a petition for certiorari before the CA
13. The CA gave due course to Renato's petition for certiorari. The CA held that there was substantial compliance with the rules on service of summons.
14. PPCI moved for reconsideration.
15. The CA denied PPCI's motion.
16. 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.
Issues:
· Whether or not petition for certiorari is the proper remedy
· Whether or not Renato's petition for certiorari before the CA is filed on time
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
FIRST ISSUE
The Supreme Court held that the proper remedy of an aggrieved party from the CA's decision is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 and not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Specifically, Rule 45 provides that decisions, final orders or resolutions of the CA in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to the Court by filing a petition for review on certiorari, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.
However, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, the Court has the discretion to treat a petition for ' certiorari as having been filed under Rule 45, especially if filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review on certiorari.
SECOND ISSUE
The Supreme Court agrees with PPCI’s argument that the CA erred in giving due course to Renato's petition for certiorari for being filed out of time. 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 January 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 NLRC 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.
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.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment