G.R. No. L-68661 - National Federation of Labor Union vs. Ople

On September 21, 1995, Engineer Yolibelle S. Avinante, Labor and Employment Officer III of DOLE Regional Office No. XI in Davao City, sent a notice to the University of Immaculate Concepcion requesting the inspection of:

The notice was issued pursuant to Article 128 of the Labor Code, authorizing DOLE to access and inspect employee records and related documents.

On September 26, 1995, Avinante proceeded to the petitioner’s premises to inspect the documents specified in her first notice.
A second notice followed, requesting additional documents such as:

In response, Sister Maria Jacinta De Belen, RVM, acting as the petitioner’s directress, filed a motion seeking to enjoin Avinante from inspecting the records.
Despite the motion, on October 17, 1995, Avinante proceeded with her inspection, was denied access by the petitioners, and subsequently issued a Notice of Inspection Results listing alleged labor law and occupational safety and health violations.

On July 22, 1996, the Regional Director of DOLE Regional Office No. XI issued an order finding the petitioners liable for violations and directed them to pay ₱2,339,752.74 as restitution to 193 affected employees, in addition to complying with occupational safety and health standards and other labor laws.
The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of this order, which was denied by the Regional Director on November 11, 1996.
On appeal, the DOLE Secretary (then represented by former Secretary Leonardo A. Quisumbing, now an Associate Justice) issued an Order on May 2, 1997, modifying the original ruling to impose a payment of only ₱38,967.50 to 15 of the 193 employees, corresponding to the underpayment of their cost of living allowances under RTWPB Wage Order No. 3.
The petitioners’ first motion for reconsideration of the modified order was denied on April 23, 1998, and a subsequent second motion for reconsideration was filed on May 20, 1998, but it was merely noted without action, being deemed pro forma.

On May 13, 1999, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court (which was then referred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to established jurisprudence).
In a Resolution dated August 31, 1999, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on the grounds that it was filed out of time. The CA held that the filing of the second, pro forma motion for reconsideration did not toll the 60-day period mandated by Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
The petitioners subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA’s Resolution, but it was also denied by the Court of Appeals on June 5, 2000.

Whether a second motion for reconsideration, when merely reiterative of previously raised and dismissed grounds, can validly toll the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari.

Whether the petition for certiorari was filed within the 60-day period as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering that the petitioners allowed a significant delay (almost one year) before filing their petition.

Whether, given that the orders of the DOLE Secretary and Regional Director had become final and executory, the petitioners could still avail themselves of the remedy of certiorari to challenge the administrative sanctions.