Case Summary (G.R. No. 244374)
Applicable Law and Procedural Framework
Governing constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable given the decision date). Controlling procedural provisions and rules invoked: Rules of Court — Rule 65 (special civil action for certiorari) and Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari), including the 60-day reglementary period for filing petitions for certiorari; Amendments to Rules (A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC) and relevant NLRC Rules (Section 4(b), Rule III of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure). Jurisprudential parameters on strict application of the 60-day rule and recognized exceptions (as summarized in Thenamaris Philippines, Inc. and other cited authorities) are applied.
Factual Background — Employment, Alarm Events, and Allegations
Renato was engaged by PPCI as a probationary store head on January 16, 2013, and appointed store officer/manager at Puregold Extra Ampid on July 16, 2013. His duties included activating/deactivating the branch IAS and responding to IAS alerts sent to his and two other officers’ mobile phones. On March 16, 2015, the IAS sounded alarms twice in the early morning; Renato arrived around 5:13 a.m., inspected the store, deactivated the alarm, and took four plastic pails from stock for personal use, explaining he needed them because of an upcoming water interruption and informing the guard.
Administrative and Termination Proceedings
PPCI served Renato a notice to explain on May 15, 2015, for (1) failure to promptly respond to IAS alerts and (2) stealing/taking of store pails. Renato acknowledged receipt of alerts but asserted he only saw them after waking at 5:00 a.m. He characterized the taking of pails as borrowing and said he informed the guard. After administrative hearing, PPCI terminated Renato by notice dated June 16, 2015 for gross and serious omission of management duty, serious and willful breach of trust, abuse of position, and stealing.
Labor Proceedings — SEnA, Labor Arbiter Decision, and Initial Service Issues
Renato sought assistance under the NLRC Single Entry Approach (SEnA) on February 1, 2016, naming Puregold Extra and Noel Groyon as respondents; notices were served to the Puregold Extra San Mateo address. SEnA conciliation-mediation failed. Renato filed before the Labor Arbiter (LA) on April 8, 2016 a complaint for illegal dismissal against Puregold Extra, Lucio Co, and Groyon. The LA rendered a decision on May 31, 2016 finding illegal dismissal and awarding back wages and separation pay, based on Renato’s position paper because respondents failed to appear. PPCI later contested service and impleading, asserting it was not properly joined and did not receive summons.
NLRC Proceedings — Remand for Lack of Jurisdiction and Subsequent Events
PPCI petitioned the NLRC to annul the LA decision, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to defective service. The NLRC Fourth Division, on September 8, 2016, remanded the case to the LA for mandatory conciliation and further proceedings, finding the LA had not acquired jurisdiction over PPCI. Renato’s motions for reconsideration and inhibition were denied by the NLRC on October 28, 2016.
Petition to the Court of Appeals and Timeliness Contentions
Renato filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) on March 13, 2017, challenging the NLRC remand resolutions. He contended he received the NLRC resolution denying his motion for reconsideration on January 12, 2017 and thus filed within the 60-day period. PPCI countered that Renato’s counsel of record actually received the NLRC resolution on December 29, 2016 (per the bailiff’s return), so the 60-day period expired on February 27, 2017; Renato’s CA petition filed March 13, 2017 was therefore late by fourteen days.
Court of Appeals Ruling and PPCI’s Recourse
The CA accepted Renato’s petition, found substantial compliance with service rules, concluded PPCI failed to prove any fraud that prevented it from appearing before the LA, and treated PPCI as having actual notice through its branch. The CA annulled the NLRC remand resolutions and held the LA decision of May 31, 2016 had already become final and executory. PPCI sought reconsideration from the CA; after the CA denied reconsideration, PPCI pursued relief to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Procedural Determination — Proper Remedy and Treatment of PPCI’s Filing
The Supreme Court stressed that the proper appellate remedy from a CA decision is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a Rule 65 certiorari action. Nevertheless, the Court may, in the interest of justice and under the liberal spirit of the Rules, treat a Rule 65 petition as one under Rule 45 if it was effectively filed within the reglementary period and met Rule 45 requirements. PPCI had, within the Rule 45 timetable, timely moved for an extension and paid required fees; its subsequent filing on March 15, 2019 was within the granted extension. Accordingly, the Court treated PPCI’s petition as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
Supreme Court Ruling on Timeliness of Renato’s CA Petition
On the merits of timeliness, the Supreme Court applied the settled rule that, for purposes of appeal, computation of reglementary periods must be reckoned from receipt by counsel or counsel of record. The bailiff’s return showed Renato’s counsel of record received the NLRC resolution on December 29, 2016; under the 60-day rule for certiorari, Renato therefore had until February 27, 2017 to file a petition for certiorari. His filing on March 13, 2017 was fourteen days late. Renato neither sought an extension nor invoked any of the recognized, compelling exceptions to the 60-day rule. Consequently, the CA should have dismissed Renato’s petition for certiorari as time-barred and should not have addressed the merits of the NLRC remand resolutions.
Application of th
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 244374)
Nature of the Case
- Petition for certiorari filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated August 24, 2018 and CA Resolution dated January 29, 2019 in CA-G.R. SP No. 149917.
- Central legal question: whether Renato M. Cruz, Jr.’s (Renato) petition for certiorari to the CA was timely filed within the 60-day reglementary period and whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in giving due course to a time-barred petition.
- Procedural focus on proper remedy (Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari vs. Rule 65 special civil action for certiorari) and strict application of the 60-day period for filing certiorari petitions.
Parties and Counsel
- Petitioner: Puregold Price Club, Inc. (PPCI).
- Respondents: Court of Appeals and Renato M. Cruz, Jr.
- Noted counsel/representatives involved in earlier proceedings: Atty. Emma Rhea B. Sadural-Capistrano (counsel for PPCI at SEnA conferences); Renato’s counsel (named in Bailiff’s Return as Atty. Donald V. Diaz or represented by Ms. Shaila Cabagtong who received copy).
Antecedent Factual Background (Employment and Incident)
- Hiring and appointment:
- Renato was hired by PPCI on January 16, 2013 as a probationary store head.
- On July 16, 2013, he was appointed store officer/manager at Puregold Extra Ampid (Puregold Extra) in San Mateo, Rizal.
- Duties and IAS procedure:
- Renato’s tasks included activation of the Intruder Alarm System (IAS) in the treasury office before store closure and deactivation upon store opening.
- IAS programmed to send message alerts to Renato and two other officers when an intruder is detected; Renato was the principal officer expected to respond because he lived nearest to the branch.
- Alarm event and taking of pails:
- March 16, 2015 at 1:23 a.m.: IAS sounded and sent messages to Renato and two other officers; none arrived; security guard Michael Mejaran (SG Mejaran) sent text messages; no response.
- 2:35 a.m.: alarm sounded again; alerts and SG Mejaran texted again; no response.
- Around 5:13 a.m.: Renato arrived, inspected store, deactivated alarm, and on his way out took four (4) plastic pails from store stock and brought them home for personal use.
Administrative Proceedings and Termination
- May 15, 2015: PPCI’s Human Resource Manager Jona Pinky J. CaAete served Renato a notice to explain for (1) failing to promptly respond to IAS alerts and (2) stealing/taking plastic pails.
- Renato’s reply:
- Admitted receipt of alerts and text messages but claimed he only saw them after waking at 5:00 a.m.
- Explained he merely borrowed the pails due to a scheduled water interruption in his area and informed SG Mejaran that he took them.
- Administrative hearing followed.
- June 16, 2015: PPCI served Renato a notice of termination for gross and serious omission to do vital management duty and responsibility; serious and willful breach of trust; abuse of position; and stealing.
Labor Proceedings: SEnA, Complaint and Labor Arbiter Decision
- February 1, 2016: Renato filed a request for assistance under the Single Entry Approach (SEnA) Program of the NLRC, indicating Puregold Extra and Noel Groyon as respondents.
- SEnA conciliation-mediation:
- Notices sent to address of Puregold Extra, San Mateo, Rizal.
- HR Manager CaAete and PPCI’s counsel Atty. Sadural-Capistrano attended SEnA conferences.
- Parties failed to reach settlement.
- April 8, 2016: Renato filed complaint for illegal dismissal against Puregold Extra, Lucio Co, and Groyon before the Labor Arbiter (LA).
- May 31, 2016: LA rendered decision based solely on Renato’s position paper because respondents failed to appear; LA held Renato was illegally dismissed and ordered PPCI to pay back wages and separation pay.
- July 15, 2016: Renato moved for issuance of writ of execution, alleging LA’s ruling became final and executory after PPCI received a copy of judgment on July 1, 2016 and did not appeal.
- July 18–29, 2016: PPCI moved to annul LA decision claiming lack of proper joinder and lack of summons; LA noted motions without action and stated PPCI’s remedy was to appeal to NLRC.
NLRC Proceedings: Petition to Annul and Remand for Conciliation
- August 8, 2016: PPCI filed petition to annul LA’s Decision and Order before the NLRC (LER Case No. 08-216-16) arguing no knowledge of Renato’s complaint, no receipt of summons, fraudulent impleader, and prayed for remand for mandatory conciliation.
- Renato’s position before NLRC: denied fraud; asserted Puregold Extra was his employer and service on Puregold Extra was sufficient because PPCI representatives attended SEnA conferences.
- September 8, 2016: Fourth Division of NLRC remanded the case to the LA for mandatory conciliation and further proceedings on ground that LA failed to acquire jurisdiction over PPCI due to improper service of summons.
- Renato sought reconsideration and inhibition of members of division; NLRC denied Renato’s motions on October 28, 2016.
Petition to the Court of Appeals and LA Resumption of Proceedings
- March 13, 2017: Renato filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 149917), contending the NLRC’s remand resolutions were erroneous and asserting timeliness of his CA petition based on receipt on January 12, 2017 of the NLRC Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration.
- NLRC compliance and LA proceedings post-remand:
- LA issued summons dated March 28, 2017 served to PPCI’s address at Paco, Manila in compliance with NLRC Resolutions.
- Parties failed to settle at conciliation and were ordered to submit position papers.
- January 30, 2018: LA ruled PPCI dismissed Renato for just cause with observance of procedural due process.
- Renato appealed to NLRC but was denied; NLRC decision became final and executory on December 2, 2018 absent timely appeal.
Court of Appeals Ruling and Rationale
- CA gave due course to Renato’s petition for certiorari.
- August 24, 2018 CA holding:
- Found substantial compliance with rules on service of summons and that PPCI failed to establish fraud that prevented its appearance