Title
Fajardo et al. vs. San Miguel Foods, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 267580
Decision Date
Nov 11, 2024
Fajardo et al. appealed a CA decision denying their motion for an extension to file a petition for certiorari regarding their illegal dismissal case, alleging abandonment by counsel. The Supreme Court reversed the CA's dismissal.
certiorari
labor law
employment

Case Summary (G.R. No. 267580)

Factual Background

Between 2005 and 2006, petitioners were engaged by Bataan Mariveles Port Services Corporation as laborers holding various positions and assigned at SMFI’s B-MEG Plant 1 in Mariveles, Bataan. In 2008, petitioners were absorbed by Hua Tong; however, their assignments at SMFI’s plant continued.

In a letter dated June 18, 2019, SMFI informed Hua Tong that it would no longer renew their business relationship upon expiration of their agreement at year’s end. On December 31, 2019, petitioners were dismissed.

Filing of the Illegal Dismissal Case Before the NLRC

On January 19, 2021, petitioners filed a case against SMFI and Hua Tong for illegal dismissal, seeking reinstatement, full back wages, and regularization, among other claims, before the arbitration branch of the NLRC. Petitioners alleged that SMFI was their real employer and that Hua Tong was a labor-only contractor.

NLRC Ruling: Dismissal of Illegal Dismissal Claim but Award of Separation Pay and Nominal Damages

On October 25, 2021, Executive Labor Arbiter Roderick Q. Almeyda rendered a decision dismissing petitioners’ illegal dismissal and money claims against SMFI and Nasario Sarseda, Jr., for lack of an employer-employee relationship. The labor arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal claim against Hua Tong as well for lack of merit. Nonetheless, the decision ordered Hua Tong to pay petitioners separation pay and nominal damages, and to pay attorney’s fees in the amount of ten percent of the total awards, while denying other money claims including moral and exemplary damages for lack of merit. The labor arbiter’s disposition, in substance, declared the parties’ arrangement as legitimate under the relevant regulatory framework or alternatively treated Hua Tong as a legitimate contractor, while awarding financial benefits to petitioners.

Appeal to the NLRC and Denial of Motion for Reconsideration

Petitioners appealed to the NLRC. In a decision dated July 21, 2022, the NLRC denied the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the labor arbiter’s decision. Petitioners then moved for reconsideration, but the NLRC denied it in a resolution dated September 30, 2022. The resolution was received by petitioners on October 11, 2022 through their previous counsel, Atty. Geneses R. Abot.

From that receipt, petitioners had a sixty-day period to perfect their petition for certiorari with the CA. The record shows that petitioners did not file within that timeframe.

Petitioners’ Motion for Extension and the CA’s Refusal

Before the CA, petitioners filed a Motion for Extension of Time on December 5, 2022, asking for an additional period of thirty days until January 10, 2023 to file their Rule 65 certiorari petition. Petitioners stated that Atty. Abot did not prepare the petition despite their arrangement and despite their advance payment of docket and other lawful fees. They also alleged that they agreed to meet Atty. Abot at his office on November 28, 2022, but he did not show up. Petitioners claimed they were still looking for new counsel, and that their delay in securing counsel prevented adequate preparation of their petition.

On January 16, 2023, the CA issued a resolution denying the motion for extension. The CA held that petitioners’ excuse was patently insufficient because they allegedly did not exert enough effort to secure a new counsel and because they did not rush to meet the filing deadline. As a consequence, the CA dismissed their petition for certiorari.

Petitioners moved for reconsideration. The CA denied it in a second resolution dated May 26, 2023, thus prompting the present recourse.

Parties’ Contentions in the Supreme Court

Petitioners maintained that the CA erred in denying their motion for extension and in dismissing the petition for certiorari. They anchored the request on their claim that their former counsel, Atty. Abot, after giving assurances that he would prepare and file the CA petition, suddenly abandoned them without preparing the draft petition despite advance payment of docket and other lawful fees. Petitioners emphasized that their status as minimum wage workers meant they lacked the ability to readily switch lawyers and navigate procedural intricacies.

The CA’s approach, as reflected in its resolutions, treated petitioners’ efforts to secure new counsel and to meet the deadline as insufficient, and it refused liberality despite the circumstances presented.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court treated the issue as whether the CA committed reversible error in dismissing the Rule 65 petition for non-compliance with the filing period.

The Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must generally be filed within sixty days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed, and that if a motion for reconsideration or new trial was timely filed, the period runs from notice of the denial of such motion. The Court also recognized, however, that procedural rules do not bar all extensions of time for filing a Rule 65 petition, provided the motion is anchored on special or compelling reasons.

In explaining the controlling framework, the Court cited jurisprudence stating that while the sixty-day period is considered inextendible to avoid unreasonable delay, exceptions have been recognized. These include circumstances such as most persuasive and weighty reasons, the need to relieve a litigant from injustice not commensurate with procedural lapse, good faith, special or compelling circumstances, and instances where the cause is not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by suspension. The Court emphasized that motions for extension partake of an accommodation grounded on sufficient reasons and remain subject to the court’s sound discretion.

Applying these principles, the Court disagreed with the CA. It noted that petitioners alleged that Atty. Abot gave assurances yet failed to prepare the CA petition and did not appear as agreed on November 28, 2022, and that there was no draft despite the advance payment of docket and other lawful fees. The Court rejected the CA’s conclusion that petitioners simply did not try hard enough.

The Supreme Court acknowledged a general principle that a client is bound by the mistakes or negligence of counsel. It then stressed recognized exceptions when counsel’s reckless or gross negligence deprives the client of due process of law, or when the failure results in the deprivation of liberty or property, or when the interests of justice so require. The Court reasoned that a strict application of procedural rules should not frustrate the ends of justice. Under its judicial duty to render justice without being constrained by technicalities, the Court held that the circumstances described by petitioners constituted a compelling circumstance.

The Court further considered the practical realities of petitioners’ situation. It found from the records that petitioners were minimum wage workers with no luxury of easily switching from one lawyer to another and with limited knowledge of procedural intricacies. Therefore, their failure to immediately secure new counsel after learning of Atty. Abot’s alleged abandonment should not be equated to a lack of effort. The Court concluded that there was a grave possibility that petitioners, relying on their counsel’s good faith assurances, were abruptly abandoned and deprived of their right to due process. It stressed that a balance must be struck between the policy of ending litigation speedily and the right of litigants to an opportunity to be heard.

The Court made clear that its action was not a determination on the merits of petitioners’ grievances against SMFI and Hua Tong. The legality of petitioners’ dismissal and whether SMFI was their actual employer remained for the CA to assess in the first instance.

Finally, because the allegations implicated Atty. Abot’s professional conduct, the Supreme Court treated it as premature to conclude that Atty. Abot indeed abandoned the case without prior notice and after receiving docket and other fees. It therefore directed that Atty. Abot be afforded the opportunity to explain himself, and it referred the matter to the Commission on Bar Discipline of th

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms