CASE DIGEST
Puregold Price Club,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 244374
(Resolution), [February 15, 2022]
FIRST, LOPEZ, M.V
Certiorari; 60-day
period in Petition for Certiorari (rule 65); Notice
When a party is represented by counsel of record, service of orders and notices must be made upon such counsel. Notice to the client or to any other lawyer other than the counsel of record, is not notice in law.
Puregold Price Club, Inc. (PPCI) hired
Renato M. Cruz, Jr. as a probationary store head, later appointing him as a
store officer/manager at Puregold Extra. Renato filed an illegal dismissal case
against Puregold Extra and its officers. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in
Renato's favor due to the respondents' absence, prompting PPCI to seek
annulment of the decision, alleging improper joinder and lack of summons. The
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) remanded the case to the LA, but
Renato's subsequent appeal was denied. He then petitioned for certiorari before
the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that his filing was timely filed on March
13, 2017. Meanwhile, the LA found that PPCI dismissed Renato for just
cause, a decision upheld by the NLRC. While Renato's CA petition was granted,
PPCI contends it was filed beyond the 60-day period. PPCI argues that Renato's
counsel received the NLRC Resolution on December 29, 2016, requiring a
petition by February 27, 2017 to avail a petition for certiorari.
Whether or not CA committed grave abuse
of discretion in giving due course to Renato's petition despite being filed out
of time.
YES.
The CA erred in giving due course to Renato's petition for certiorari for being
filed out of time. The court emphasized the strict filing deadline of sixty
(60) days for petitions for certiorari from the notice of judgment or denial of
a motion for reconsideration. Renato argued that the period commenced on
January 12, 2017, when he purportedly received the NLRC resolution. However,
the court ruled that the period began on December 29, 2016, the date Renato's
counsel received the resolution, per Rule III of the 2011 NLRC Rules of
Procedure. When a party is represented by counsel of record, service of orders
and notices must be made upon such counsel. Hence, it was on December 29, 2016
when the notice was received by Renato’s counsel that the 60-day reglementary period
starts to accrue.
Consequently, the March 13,2027 petition should
have been dismissed for being time-barred. Court of Appeals should have
dismissed it outright.
No comments:
Post a Comment