G.R. No. 197556 - Waterfront Cebu City Casino Hotel, Inc. vs. Ledesma

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Petitioners, Waterfront Cebu City Casino Hotel, Inc. and Marco Protacio, sought to set aside decisions of the Court of Appeals (CA) that reversed the ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and reinstated a Labor Arbiter (LA) decision.
The LA had originally declared the dismissal of respondent Ildebrando Ledesma illegal, ordering his reinstatement with full backwages and service incentive leave pay, as well as attorney’s fees.

Respondent Ildebrando Ledesma was employed as a House Detective at the Waterfront Hotel in Cebu City.
Allegations against Ledesma, based on complaints by Christe Mandal (a supplier of a concessionaire) and Rosanna Lofranco (a job-seeker), alleged that:

He kissed and massaged the breasts of Christe Mandal inside the hotel’s elevator.
He exhibited his penis and solicited Rosanna Lofranco to perform a sexual act in the hotel’s conference room.

Based on these allegations, Ledesma was dismissed from employment by Waterfront.

Ledesma filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC on August 12, 2008 (docketed as NLRC RAB-VII Case No. 08-1887-08).
The Labor Arbiter found the allegations to be concoctions and ruled that Ledesma’s dismissal was illegal, ordering his reinstatement and awarding monetary relief.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the LA’s decision, categorizing Ledesma’s sexual overtures as grave misconduct justifying his dismissal, and denied his motion for reconsideration.
Ledesma then filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, which initially accepted an amended petition claiming that the reglementary 60-day period for filing was calculated from his receipt of the adverse NLRC resolution rather than from his counsel’s receipt.
The CA later rendered a decision reversing the NLRC ruling and reinstating the LA decision, while Waterfront moved for dismissal of the petition on the ground of untimeliness; the CA denied Waterfront’s motion for reconsideration.

A key element in the proceedings was the computation of the reglementary 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari.

Ledesma contended that his petition was timely based on his own receipt of the NLRC resolution.
However, established jurisprudence requires that notice be served to counsel of record, which then binds the client.

The presentation by Waterfront’s representative using a Community Tax Certificate instead of an official identification document.
The absence of a certified true copy of the Board Resolution attached to the Secretary’s Certificate.

The Court examined whether these alleged formal infirmities were sufficient to warrant dismissal of the petition.

Whether the petition for certiorari was filed within the 60-day reglementary period.
Whether Ledesma’s assertion that the 60-day period should be computed from his receipt of the NLRC resolution (March 24, 2010) is legally tenable, as opposed to computing the period from the counsel’s receipt (March 15, 2010).

Whether the use of a Community Tax Certificate in lieu of an official photo identification violates administrative issuances (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC) enough to render the petition defective.
Whether the absence of a certified true copy of the Board Resolution in the attachments is a fatal error in the petition.

Whether there is room for judicial discretion or extension of the 60-day filing period under rule as evidenced by contrasting decisions (e.g., Domdom v. Third & Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan versus Labao v. Flores).
Whether the failure to invoke or justify the request for leniency in filing the petition can be excused.