Case Summary (G.R. No. 238659)
Employment and Allegations
Ledesma's employment was terminated based on complaints from Christe Mandal, a supplier, and Rosanna Lofranco, who was applying for a job at the hotel. Mandal's testimony indicated that Ledesma exhibited inappropriate sexual behavior towards her, while Lofranco described a similar experience, where Ledesma allegedly solicited sexual acts from her. Following these complaints, Ledesma was dismissed from his position.
Initial Rulings
On August 12, 2008, Ledesma filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of Ledesma on April 29, 2009, stating that the allegations were fabricated and declared his dismissal as illegal, ordering reinstatement and payment of back wages.
NLRC Reversal
The NLRC reviewed the case and on November 27, 2009, reversed the LA's decision. The NLRC found that Ledesma’s actions constituted grave misconduct, thereby justifying his dismissal. A subsequent resolution denying Ledesma's motion for reconsideration was issued on February 22, 2010.
Timeliness of Appeals
Following the NLRC’s decisions, Ledesma, through his counsel Atty. Gines Abellana, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) on May 17, 2010. However, Waterfront argued that the petition was filed beyond the allowable 60-day period from the date of the NLRC's resolution denying the motion for reconsideration.
Amendments and Court Admission
Ledesma later sought to amend his petition, claiming that the timeline should be based on his own receipt of the resolution, which he argued was on March 24, 2010, rather than the date Atty. Abellana received it. The CA allowed the amendment and eventually ruled in favor of Ledesma on March 17, 2011, reinstating the LA's decision and declaring the NLRC’s findings invalid.
Procedural Issues Raised
Waterfront subsequently filed a petition for review on certiorari, challenging the CA's ruling primarily on procedural grounds, arguing that the appeal was tardy and that formal defects in Ledesma's filing warranted dismissal.
Court's Findings on Procedural Compliance
The Supreme Court acknowledged Waterfront's claims regarding procedural irregularities in Ledesma's filing but held that these were not fatal defects. The Court emphasized, however, that Ledesma's failure to appeal within the mandated 60-day period after being informed of the NLRC's resolution constituted a jurisdictional flaw leading to the dismissal of his appeal.
Impact of
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 238659)
Case Background
- This case involves a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, by petitioners Waterfront Cebu City Casino Hotel, Inc. and Marco Protacio.
- The petition seeks to set aside the Decision dated March 17, 2011, and Resolution dated June 21, 2011, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 05071.
- The CA reversed the Decision dated November 27, 2009, and Resolution dated February 22, 2010, of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), reinstating the Decision dated April 29, 2009, of the Labor Arbiter (LA), which declared that respondent Ildebrando Ledesma was illegally dismissed.
Factual Antecedents
- Ildebrando Ledesma was employed as a House Detective at Waterfront located in Cebu City.
- Ledesma's dismissal was based on complaints from Christe Mandal, a supplier, and Rosanna Lofranco, a job applicant, alleging sexual misconduct by Ledesma, including inappropriate physical contact and requests for sexual favors.
- An administrative hearing conducted by Waterfront found Ledesma guilty of the allegations, leading to his dismissal.
Labor Arbiter's Decision
- On April 29, 2009, the Labor Arbiter ruled that the allegations against Ledesma were unfounded and constituted mere fabrications.
- The ruling declared Ledesma's suspension and dismissal illegal, ordering his reinstatement with full backwages and service incentive leave pay.
National Labor Relations Commission Ruling
- Upon appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on November 27, 2009,