G.R. No. 142930 - People vs. Canete

On August 24, 2004, Saudi Arabian Airlines (SAUDIA) issued a memo to transfer 10 flight attendants—including petitioners Maria Lourdes D. Castells and Shalimar Centi-Mandanas—from Manila to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia for operational requirements.
While Centi-Mandanas complied with the transfer order, Castells did not initially comply, prompting subsequent events leading to an alleged forced resignation.

Centi-Mandanas claimed that upon her arrival in Jeddah, she was informed that her contract would not be renewed and was asked to sign a pre-printed resignation letter.
Though she did not wish to resign, Centi-Mandanas alleged that the circumstances left her no viable option, effectively coercing her into executing the resignation.
Castells maintained that after her initial refusal to abide by the transfer order, she prepared a resignation letter claiming that she was forced to resign.
She further stated that the SAUDIA Manila Office Manager directed her to amend the resignation letter to state a voluntary resignation, which she reluctantly followed.

Petitioners, along with co-flight attendant Maria Joy Teresa O. Bilbao, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against SAUDIA.
The complaint sought reinstatement, full backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
They contended that the transfer order was part of a scheme aimed at terminating the employment of flight attendants—who were nearing the age of 39 to 40—by forcing their resignations upon transfer.

In a Decision dated August 31, 2006, the Labor Arbiter found SAUDIA guilty of illegal dismissal, noting that the petitioners did not voluntarily resign but were forced to do so under the threat of termination.
The Labor Arbiter ordered SAUDIA to pay backwages from the date of illegal dismissal until the decision’s finality, along with separation pay computed as one month’s salary for every year of service, less any amounts already received.
SAUDIA appealed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
In its Resolution dated June 25, 2007, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, holding that the presence of language of gratitude in the resignation letters and the execution of a valid undertaking by the petitioners indicated their voluntary resignation.
Petitioners sought reconsideration of the NLRC ruling through a subsequent motion, which was denied.

Petitioners then filed a Motion for Extension to File a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) on January 16, 2008, requesting 15 days from January 18, 2008—or until February 2, 2008—to file the petition.
The CA granted the extension in its Resolution dated January 29, 2008, and petitioners filed the subject petition on February 4, 2008 (the next working day since February 2, 2008, fell on a Saturday).
SAUDIA filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the same day, arguing that under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC the extension period was no longer permitted.
The CA’s Resolution dated August 28, 2008 subsequently reconsidered its earlier grant and ruled the petition as non-admitted for non-compliance with Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC.
A Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners on September 26, 2008 was denied in a Resolution dated June 16, 2009, which then led to the petition for review on certiorari.

The primary issue before the court was whether the CA correctly refused admission of the subject petition based on the alleged lapse in the reglementary period under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court as amended.
Petitioners contended that A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC did not expressly preclude the court’s discretion to grant extensions when compelling reasons existed.
SAUDIA argued that the amendment clearly disallowed any extension, thereby validating the CA’s decision to dismiss the petition.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in refusing the admission of the petition for certiorari based on the strict reglementary period provided under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC.

Petitioners argue that the amendment did not explicitly remove the court’s discretion to extend the filing period in the presence of compelling reasons.
SAUDIA contends that the amendment effectively bars any such extension, thus the CA was correct in dismissing the petition.