Case Digest (G.R. No. 267580)
Facts:
Catalino E. Fajardo, et al. v. San Miguel Foods, Inc. (B Meg Plant 1) and Nasario Sarceda, Jr., G.R. No. 267580, November 11, 2024, Supreme Court Third Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Catalino E. Fajardo, George T. Prudencio, Norberto L. Gubian, Jayson R. Sanguyo, Gaudioso A. Bacsal, Jr., Ireneo L. Loyola, Danton B. Nuevo, Jr., Joey M. Calimlim, Juanito M. Sorosoro, Jr., and Jhoemar G. Fajardo (collectively, Fajardo et al.) were laborers assigned to San Miguel Foods, Inc. (SMFI)’s B‑MEG Plant 1, originally engaged by Bataan Mariveles Port Services Corporation and later absorbed by Hua Tong Far East, Inc. (Hua Tong). On June 18, 2019 SMFI informed Hua Tong it would not renew their arrangement; Fajardo et al. were separated from employment on December 31, 2019.
On January 19, 2021, Fajardo et al. filed an illegal dismissal complaint with the arbitration branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), alleging SMFI was their real employer and Hua Tong only a labor‑only contractor. On October 25, 2021, Labor Arbiter Roderick Q. Almeyda dismissed their complaint for illegal dismissal (finding lack of employer–employee relationship with SMFI) but ordered Hua Tong to pay separation pay and nominal damages and declared the arrangement legitimate toll feedmilling excluded from Department Order No. 174.
Fajardo et al. appealed to the NLRC, which on July 21, 2022 denied the appeal and affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision; the NLRC also denied their motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated September 30, 2022, which the petitioners received on October 11, 2022 through their then‑counsel, Atty. Geneses R. Abot. The 60‑day period to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) therefore ran until December 10, 2022.
On December 5, 2022 Fajardo et al. filed a Motion for Extension of Time with the CA seeking an additional 30 days (until January 10, 2023) to perfect a Rule 65 petition, explaining that Atty. Abot allegedly failed to prepare the petition or meet them on a scheduled date despite prior assurances and payment of fees, and that they were still securing new counsel. New counsel filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA via registered mail on January 10, 2023.
The CA (Fifteenth Division) denied the Motion for Extension in a Resolution dated January 16, 2023, holding the petitioners did not exert adequate effort to secure new counsel and failed to rush to meet the filing deadline, a...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in denying Fajardo et al.’s Motion for Extension of Time and dismissing their petition for certiorari under Rule...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)