G.R. No. 228572 - Calleon vs. HZSC Realty Corp.

The controversy arose from complaints for illegal (constructive) dismissal, non-payment of salary, 13th month pay, and separation pay, as well as claims for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
Respondents, former employees represented by individuals named John Leanlon P. Raymundo, Emerson D. Angeles, Lloyd T. Ison, Sherwin M. OdoAo, Lemuel D. Venzon, and Ronald F. Caling, initiated these complaints against HZSC Realty Corporation and its President, petitioner Michael Adriano Calleon, after the business experienced severe losses culminating in a temporary shutdown on January 23, 2015.

In a Decision rendered on April 29, 2016, the Labor Arbiter declared HZSC and petitioner guilty of illegal (constructive) dismissal for failing to comply with the procedural requirements of Article 283 (now Article 298) of the Labor Code.
The LA ordered the payment of unpaid salaries, separation pay, nominal damages, and an additional ten percent of the monetary awards as attorney’s fees.
HZSC and petitioner appealed the decision before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), but the NLRC dismissed their appeal on June 30, 2016 and subsequently denied their motions for reconsideration on August 31, 2016.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA seeking absolution from liability, primarily on the ground of absence of malice and fraud on his part.
On September 23, 2016, the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari for failure to comply with the required contents and accompanying documents.
Petitioner received personal notice of the CA’s September 23, 2016 Resolution on October 5, 2016.

On October 26, 2016, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, asserting that his counsel, Atty. Ariel C. Santos, had received notice of the CA’s September 23, 2016 Resolution on October 11, 2016, contrary to the personal notice received by petitioner on October 5, 2016.
Attached to the motion was an Amended Petition for Certiorari, wherein petitioner contended that the procedural defects previously noted by the CA had been remedied.
On November 28, 2016, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration on the ground that it was belatedly filed.

The CA’s resolution was based on the timeline wherein petitioner was personally notified on October 5, 2016, despite the fact that service should have been effected upon his counsel per Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.
A registered letter (Letter No. BDN-2291), sent to Atty. Santos’s registered address in Meycauayan, Bulacan, served as the notice.
The CA’s tracer, sent on November 8, 2016, confirmed via the postmaster that the letter was received on October 11, 2016, thereby establishing that petitioner had fifteen (15) days from October 11, 2016 (until October 26, 2016) to file the motion.

On January 25, 2017, the CA issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining the NLRC from implementing its previous decisions, pending further resolution of the case.
Due to discrepancies in petitioner’s statements regarding the receipt of the CA’s resolution, the Court directed the CA to elevate the complete records for a comprehensive review.

Whether the CA erroneously dismissed petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on the basis that it was belatedly filed, given the conflicting dates of notice received by petitioner and his counsel.
Whether the service of the September 23, 2016 Resolution on petitioner’s counsel, as provided by Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, should constitute the effective notice in law.

Whether reliance on the personal notice received by petitioner on October 5, 2016 is appropriate or if the proper service rules mandating service upon counsel should prevail.
Whether the tracer results confirming the registered letter’s receipt on October 11, 2016 establish the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration.

With the motion for reconsideration pending resolution, whether petitioner should also address the issue regarding his potential individual liability for the respondents’ claims alongside the non-operating respondent, HZSC Realty Corporation.