Case Digest (G.R. No. 207684)
Facts:
The case titled Noel F. Ciacico vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Honorable Labor Arbiter Fatima Jambaro-Franco, and Toyota Motors Philippines Corp., G.R. No. 137113, was decided by the Supreme Court en banc on August 30, 1999. The petitioner, Noel F. Ciacico, is challenging a decision from the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On September 14, 1998, Ciacico received the NLRC Decision dated July 28, 1998. Following this, on September 24, 1998, he filed a Motion for Reconsideration concerning that decision. He subsequently received the Resolution from the NLRC denying his motion on December 4, 1998.
When Ciacico filed his petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on January 28, 1999, it was claimed that this was within the allowable sixty-day period from the notice of the NLRC’s judgment. Notably, the Supreme Court had previously dismissed his petition for certiorari on March 3, 1999, citing that it was fi
Case Digest (G.R. No. 207684)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- Petitioner: Noel F. Ciacico.
- Respondents:
- National Labor Relations Commission.
- Honorable Labor Arbiter Fatima Jambaro-Franco.
- Toyota Motors Phil. Corp.
- Chronology of Events
- On September 14, 1998, the petitioner received a copy of the NLRC Decision dated July 28, 1998.
- On September 24, 1998, the petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration relying on the decision received earlier.
- On December 4, 1998, the petitioner received the copy of the Resolution denying his Motion for Reconsideration.
- Legal Framework and Timelines
- Section 4 of Rule 65 (amended by Circular No. 39-98) prescribes that a petition must be filed within sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution being assailed.
- Rule 22 provides the method for computing time, specifically:
- The day or event from which the period begins is excluded.
- The day of performance is included.
- If the last day falls on a weekend or holiday, the period extends to the next working day.
- Interruption of the time period:
- Filing a motion for new trial or reconsideration interrupts the running of the period.
- If such motion is denied, the petition must be filed within the remaining period, which, in any event, must not be less than five (5) days.
- Computation of the Available Time
- Upon receipt of the NLRC decision on September 14, 1998, the petitioner had the full 60-day period to file his petition.
- Filing the Motion for Reconsideration on September 24, 1998, consumed nine (9) days of the 60-day period.
- When the Resolution denying the Motion was received on December 4, 1998, only fifty-one (51) days remained for filing the petition.
- Filing of the Petition and Resulting Issue
- The petitioner filed his petition on January 28, 1999 (a Thursday).
- This filing occurred after the lapse of fifty-five (55) days from the receipt of the Resolution—a period that exceeded the remaining twenty days available within the prescribed deadline under the rules.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioner’s petition for certiorari was filed within the prescribed 60-day period as mandated by Section 4 of Rule 65.
- Whether the computation of time, as provided under Rule 22 (which excludes the day of receipt of the act and includes the day of performance), was correctly applied to the petitioner’s timeline.
- Whether the interruption caused by the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration legally allowed for an extension or re-computation of the 60-day period within which the petition should have been filed.
- Whether the petitioner’s allegation regarding the receipt of different documents (the NLRC Decision versus the Resolution on reconsideration) justifies the delayed filing of the petition.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)