G.R. No. 244374 - Puregold Price Club, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

On January 16, 2013, Puregold Price Club, Inc. (PPCI) hired Renato M. Cruz, Jr. as a probationary store head.
On July 16, 2013, PPCI appointed Renato as store officer/manager at Puregold Extra Ampid in San Mateo, Rizal.
Renato’s duties included activating and deactivating the Intruder Alarm System (IAS) programmed to alert his mobile phone and two others in the event of an intrusion.

On March 16, 2015, the IAS was triggered twice during the early morning hours (at approximately 1:23 a.m. and 2:35 a.m.).
Despite receiving multiple alerts and text messages (including those sent by a security guard, Michael Mejaran), Renato did not respond promptly.
At around 5:13 a.m., Renato finally arrived, inspected the premises, deactivated the alarm, and on his way out, removed four plastic pails from the store for his personal use, justifying the act as a temporary “borrowing” due to a scheduled water interruption.

On May 15, 2015, PPCI served Renato a notice to explain regarding his failure to respond promptly to the IAS alerts and the taking of the plastic pails.
Following an administrative hearing, Renato was dismissed on June 16, 2015 for alleged gross and serious omissions, breach of trust, abuse of position, and theft.
Renato subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter (LA) on April 8, 2016.
On May 31, 2016, the LA rendered a decision in Renato’s favor based solely on his position paper (the respondents did not appear), ruling that his dismissal was illegal and ordering PPCI to pay back wages and separation pay.

Renato moved for a writ of execution on July 15, 2016, and PPCI subsequently contested the jurisdiction of the LA on the ground of improper service and non-joinder.
PPCI filed a petition to annul the LA’s decision and later sought mandatory conciliation by petitioning before the NLRC in LER Case No. 08-216-16.
During the SEnA (Single Entry Approach) conciliation conferences, PPCI’s counsel and representatives appeared, yet an amicable settlement was not reached.
The NLRC’s Fourth Division remanded the case for further proceedings on September 8, 2016 for lack of proper jurisdiction due to alleged improper service of summons.

Renato elevated the case by filing a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) on March 13, 2017, contending that service of notifications rendered PPCI subject to jurisdiction via Puregold Extra.
PPCI argued that Renato’s petition was filed out of time, particularly because his counsel had received the NLRC Resolution (denying his motion for reconsideration) on December 29, 2016, thereby triggering a strict 60-day reglementary period which Renato exceeded by 14 days.
PPCI also submitted a motion for extension to file a petition for review (under Rule 45) within the allowed extended period from February 28, 2019 to March 30, 2019, eventually filing a petition for certiorari on March 15, 2019.

Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the appropriate remedy, or if the proper remedy is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
The examination of whether the filing remedy should be transformed due to the liberal application of the Rules of Court if the petition was filed within the reglementary period as defined for a petition for review.

Whether the petition for certiorari was timely filed, given that Renato’s counsel received the critical NLRC Resolution on December 29, 2016, establishing a 60-day period that expired on February 27, 2017.
The issue centers on whether the petition, filed on March 13, 2017 (14 days late), is validly timely if considered under the guidelines provided by the Rules of Court and the exceptions for extensions.

Whether the service of summons through Puregold Extra is sufficient to confer jurisdiction over PPCI.
The broader implications on the finality and executory nature of decisions rendered by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC if procedural rules on timeliness are not strictly observed.