G.R. No. 206555 - Pagdanga, Jr. vs. Sarmiento

On May 8, 2008, Sea Gem Maritime International, Inc. (Sea Gem), on behalf of its foreign principal, Corinthian Maritime S.A. (Corinthian), hired Florentino P. Sarmiento as Chief Mate of the vessel M/T Intuition for an initial period of seven months.
Sarmiento boarded the vessel on May 10, 2008, and upon the expiration of his contract on December 10, 2008, his employment was extended for an additional two months.
On January 3, 2009, Sarmiento was transferred to the vessel M/T Setubal I and continued to function as Chief Mate.

While docked at Nigeria on January 14, 2009, Sarmiento experienced a loss of strength in his left arm and fingers.
Medical examination at the Adeiza Clinic in Lagos diagnosed him with Mild Cardiovascular Stroke, Disused Atrophy of the Left Hand, and Hypertension; his condition necessitated repatriation.
Consequently, on January 18, 2009, Sarmiento was repatriated to the Philippines and referred for further medical evaluation at the MRI Diagnosis Center.

The complaint implicated multiple parties, including petitioners Atty. Fortunato Pagdanganan, Jr., Atty. Abigail D. Suarez, and Eugenio A. Villanueva, as well as other individuals and groups (notably the PeAalosa Group).
Petitioners denied liability, asserting they were no longer connected with Sea Gem at the time Sarmiento’s complaint was filed because they had resigned prior to his employment (Villanueva resigned on February 5, 2008; Pagdanganan and Suarez resigned on June 16, 2008).
Conversely, the PeAalosa Group contended they had divested their shares well before Sarmiento’s engagement, thus should not be held liable.

On January 19, 2010, the LA rendered a decision finding petitioners, Sea Gem, Corinthian, the PeAalosa Group, and other respondents liable for Sarmiento’s monetary claims.
The LA’s decision awarded Sarmiento unpaid wages and sickness allowance after determining:

The LA dismissed Sarmiento’s claim for disability benefits and reimbursement of medical expenses due to insufficient medical evidence.
The LA also held petitioners liable under Section 10 of RA 8042, emphasizing that resignation as a director or officer does not relieve one of liabilities under the said statute.

Petitioners, among others, appealed the LA decision.
On September 30, 2010, the NLRC affirmed the LA’s ruling but modified it by absolving petitioners, reasoning they were no longer connected with Sea Gem when Sarmiento’s cause of action arose.
Sarmiento later moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the NLRC in a resolution on December 30, 2010.
Notice of the December 30, 2010 resolution was served on Sarmiento’s counsel, Atty. Jay T. Borromeo, on January 12, 2011.

On April 7, 2011, Sarmiento, representing himself, filed a petition for certiorari before the CA challenging the NLRC’s modification, claiming grave abuse of discretion.
Petitioners argued that the petition was filed beyond the prescribed 60-day period – contending that Sarmiento should have been personally notified rather than his counsel, and noting that his petition was filed 85 days after his counsel received notice of the NLRC resolution.
Atty. Borromeo’s status as counsel became a pivotal issue after he later filed a Manifestation with Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance on June 1, 2011, claiming he had been discharged and that a third party had received the NLRC resolution.
Despite the subsequent withdrawal by Atty. Borromeo, the CA records showed that no formal withdrawal had been properly served before the NLRC resolution was received by him, leaving him as Sarmiento’s counsel on record.

In its decision dated October 23, 2012, the CA ascribed grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC and reinstated the LA decision, holding petitioners liable.
Petitioners then moved for reconsideration, which was again denied by the CA on March 26, 2013.
In the present petition for review, petitioners contend that the CA should have dismissed Sarmiento’s petition for certiorari as out of time, thereby arguing that the CA did not acquire jurisdiction over the matter, which in turn should have left the NLRC ruling unassailable.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC and reinstating the LA decision despite the contention that Sarmiento’s petition for certiorari was filed outside the 60-day reglementary period.

The argument centers on the timeliness of the filing, calculated from the date the counsel (Atty. Borromeo) received notice of the NLRC’s December 30, 2010 resolution (January 12, 2011) versus the date Sarmiento was purportedly notified (February 10, 2011).
Whether the service of notice to the counsel binds the client in matters of timing for filing a petition for certiorari.