Case Summary (G.R. No. 229106)
Applicable Laws
The relevant laws pertain to the labor regulations outlined in the Labor Code of the Philippines. Specifically, Article 283 (now Article 298) addresses illegal (constructive) dismissal and procedural requirements for termination due to business closures or redundancy.
Background of the Dispute
Respondents filed complaints for illegal (constructive) dismissal against HZSC and its president, petitioner Calleon, due to the failure to rehire them after more than six months of inactivity following a temporary shutdown. The Labor Arbiter’s decision on April 29, 2016, found HZSC and Calleon liable for illegal dismissal, ordering the payment of unpaid salaries, separation pay, nominal damages, and attorney's fees.
Procedural History
Following the Arbiter's decision, Calleon and HZSC appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which upheld the Labor Arbiter’s ruling in a decision dated June 30, 2016. Their subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied by the NLRC. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was subsequently dismissed on September 23, 2016, for failure to comply with procedural requisites.
Motion for Reconsideration
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on October 26, 2016, claiming that he received notice of the CA's September 23 resolution on October 11, 2016, which he argued made his filing within the required timeframe. The CA, however, deemed the motion belatedly filed in its subsequent November 28, 2016 resolution.
Supreme Court Examination
The Supreme Court examined whether the CA erred in dismissing the motion for reconsideration. It noted the procedural distinction that for parties represented by counsel, service of notice upon the counsel is required for it to have legal effect. Thus, even though the attorney received notice, the CA miscalculated the timeliness based on the petitioner's personal receipt of the CA resolution rather than the attorney's receipt.
Findings on Procedural Compliance
The Supreme Court found that the CA failed to properly consider the timeline concerning the registered letter notifying Atty. Santos. The petitioner had until October 26, 2016, to file his motion for reconsideration, which was timely based on the factual circumstances surrounding notice.
Resolution Context
Upon determining that the CA e
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 229106)
Case Background
- The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Michael Adriano Calleon, challenging the Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) that denied his motion for reconsideration.
- The controversy arose from complaints filed by several respondents against HZSC Realty Corporation and its president, Michael Adriano Calleon, for illegal (constructive) dismissal, non-payment of salaries, 13th month pay, and separation pay, among other claims.
- The complaints were triggered by HZSC's failure to rehire the respondents following a temporary business shutdown due to financial losses on January 23, 2015.
Procedural History
- The Labor Arbiter (LA) found HZSC and Calleon guilty of illegal dismissal for not adhering to procedural requirements under Article 283 (now Article 298) of the Labor Code, ordering them to pay the respondents various monetary awards.
- HZSC and Calleon appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which dismissed their appeal and denied their motions for reconsideration.
- Calleon then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, seeking to absolve himself from liability due to the absence of malice or fraud on his part.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- The