Title
Calleon vs. HZSC Realty Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 228572
Decision Date
Jan 27, 2020
Employees alleged illegal dismissal and unpaid wages after a business shutdown; Supreme Court ruled their motion for reconsideration was timely, remanding the case to the CA for merits review.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 228572)

Facts:

Background of the Case

The case originated from complaints filed by respondents John Leanlon P. Raymundo, Emerson D. Angeles, Lloyd T. Ison, Sherwin M. Odoao, Lemuel D. Venzon, and Ronald F. Caling against HZSC Realty Corporation (HZSC) and its President, petitioner Michael Adriano Calleon. The complaints alleged illegal (constructive) dismissal, non-payment of salary, 13th month pay, separation pay, and claims for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. These arose from HZSC's failure to rehire the respondents after a temporary shutdown of its business operations due to financial losses on January 23, 2015.

Labor Arbiter's Decision

The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring HZSC and petitioner guilty of illegal (constructive) dismissal for failing to comply with procedural requirements under Article 283 (now Article 298) of the Labor Code. The LA ordered HZSC and petitioner to pay the respondents their unpaid salaries, separation pay, nominal damages, and attorney's fees.

NLRC's Decision

HZSC and petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which dismissed their appeal and denied their motions for reconsideration.

Petition Before the CA

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking to absolve himself from liability, arguing the absence of malice or fraud on his part. The CA dismissed the petition for procedural deficiencies, and petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied for being belatedly filed.

Discrepancy in Notice of Resolution

Petitioner claimed that his counsel, Atty. Ariel C. Santos, received notice of the CA's September 23, 2016 Resolution on October 17, 2016, making his motion for reconsideration timely. However, the CA denied the motion, reckoning the period from petitioner's personal receipt of the notice on October 5, 2016.

Supreme Court's Intervention

The Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and directed the CA to elevate the complete records of the case to resolve the discrepancy in the notice of receipt.


Issue:

The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether the CA erred in dismissing petitioner's motion for reconsideration for being belatedly filed.


Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.