Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5


Respondent Ledesma was employed as a House Detective at Waterfront. The basis of the
complaints was filed before Waterfront by Christe Mandal, a supplier of a concessionaire of
Waterfront, and Rosanna Lofranco, who was seeking a job at the same hotel. During the
administrative hearings conducted by Waterfront, it found that Ledesma kissed and mashed the
breasts of Christe Mandal inside the hotels elevator, and exhibited his penis and asked Rosanna
Lofranco to masturbate him at the conference room of the hotel. In 2008, Ledesma filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal thereafter the LA ruled that the dismissal of ledesma is illegal. On
appeal to the NLRC, the latter reversed the ruling of the LA and held that Ledesmas acts of
sexual overtures to Christe Mandal and Rosanna Lofranco constituted grave misconduct
justifying his dismissal from employment. Ledesma filed motion for reconsideration but it was
latter denied and the copy of the said Resolution was received by Atty. Abellana, Ledesmas
counsel, on March 15, 2010.
On May 17, 2010,or sixty-three (63) days after Atty. Abellana received a copy of the NLRCs
Resolution he filed before the CA a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Ledesma contended that his receipt on March 24, 2010 (and not the receipt on March 15, 2010
by Atty. Abellana), is the reckoning date of the 60-day reglementary period within which to file
the petition. Hence, Ledesma claims that the petition was timely filed on May 17, 2010.
Waterfront on the otherhand contend that the petition was belatedly filed. The CA, thereafter,
rendered a Decision, reversing the Decision of the NLRC and reinstating the ruling of the LA
that the dismissal is illegal.

whether the petition for certiorari was timely filed with the CA?

The Court finds Waterfronts petition to be meritorious. Under Section 4, Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, reads:
SEC. 4. When and where to file the petition. The petition shall be filed not later than
sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for
reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the petition
shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted from the notice of the denial of the motion.

Jurisprudence provides, present rule now mandatorily requires compliance with the reglementary
period. under the amendment by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC of Section 4, Rule 65 simply meant that
there can no longer be any extension of the 60-day period within which to file a petition
for certiorari. The rationale for the amendments under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC is essentially to
prevent the use (or abuse) of the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to delay a case or even
defeat the ends of justice. Deleting the paragraph allowing extensions to file petition on
compelling grounds did away with the filing of such motions. As the Rule now stands, petitions
for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of judgment or from the order
denying a motion for reconsideration. In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded, and
the last included; hence, the last day to file his petition for certiorari is on May 14, 2010, a
In this case, the petition for certiorari was filed with the CA beyond the 60-day period. Atty.
Abellana, Ledesmas counsel, admittedly received a copy of the NLRC Resolution denying the
Motion for Reconsideration on March 15, 2010 while Ledesma received his copy on March 24,
2010. It must remember that, when a party to a suit appears by counsel, service of every
judgment and all orders of the court must be sent to the counsel. This is so because notice to
counsel is an effective notice to the client, while notice to the client and not his counsel is not
notice in law. Receipt of notice by the counsel of record is the reckoning point of the
reglementary period. Notice sent to counsel of record is binding upon the client.
Therefore, with the expiration of the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari, a review of the
Resolution of the NLRC will be beyond the jurisdiction of any court. No longer assailable, the
NLRC Resolution could not be altered or modified. A decision that has acquired finality becomes
immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the
modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made
by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land.



Respondents Lowito Amor, Ceredon, Cesar, Martinez and Tabili, Jr. were regular
employees of petitioner Manila Mining Corporation, a domestic corporation which operated a
mining claim in Placer, Surigao del Norte. In compliance with existing environmental laws,
petitioner maintained Tailing Pond No. 7 (TP No. 7), a tailings containment facility required for
the storage of waste materials generated by its mining operations. When the mine tailings being
pumped into TP No. 7 reached the maximum level in December 2000, petitioner temporarily shut

down its mining operations. Although the DENR-EMB issued a temporary authority on 25
January 2001 for it to be able to continue operating TP No. 7 for another six (6) months and to
increase its capacity, petitioner failed to secure an extension permit when said temporary
authority eventually lapsed.
On 27 July 2001, petitioner served a notice, informing its employees of the temporary
suspension of its operations for six months and the temporary lay-off of two-thirds of its
employees. After the lapse of said period, petitioner notified the DOLE on 11 December 2001
that it was extending the temporary shutdown of its operations for another six months. Because
of petitioners continued failure to resume its operations, respondents filed the complaint for
constructive dismissal.
The LA ruled that petitioner liable for constructive dismissal. Petitioner appealed in NLRC.
NLRC reversed the decision of LA. Now, Respondent appeal and filed Rule 65 petition for
certiorari. Respondents argued that the appeal bond tendered by petitioner was so grossly
disproportionate to monetary award for the same to be considered substantial compliance with
the requirements for the perfection of an appeal from a Labor Arbiters decision and petitioners
memorandum of appeal was filed 65 days after the lapse of reglementary period for appeal. The
CA grants the respondents petition and nullifying the NLRC. Hence, petitioner come to this
Won the petitioners appeal filed with the NLRC was fatally defective and won it had
fully complied with the requirements of the labor code for perfecting an appeal?

As provided in Section 6, Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, the Court
hereby RESOLVES that henceforth, the following guidelines shall be observed:
(a) The filing of a motion to reduce appeal bond shall be entertained by the NLRC subject
to the following conditions: (1) there is meritorious ground; and (2) a bond in a
reasonable amount is posted;
(b) For purposes of compliance with condition no. (2), a motion shall be accompanied by
the posting of a provisional cash or surety bond equivalent to ten percent (10), of the
monetary award subject of the appeal, exclusive of damages and attorney's fees;

(c) Compliance with the foregoing conditions shall suffice to suspend the running of the
10-day reglementary period to perfect an appeal from the labor arbiter's decision to the
(d) The NLRC retains its authority and duty to resolve the motion to reduce bond and
determine the final amount of bond that shall be posted by the appellant, still in
accordance with the standards of meritorious grounds and reasonable amount; and
(e) In the event that the NLRC denies the motion to reduce bond, or requires a bond that
exceeds the amount of the provisional bond, the appellant shall be given a fresh period of
ten (10) days from notice of the NLRC order within which to perfect the appeal by
posting the required appeal bond.

In this case the court denied the claim of petitioner. As the first claim of petitioner , they wanted
for reduction of the appeal bond on the basis of serious losses and reverses, this left to nonce. For
the second claim of petitioner that the amount of P100,000.00 which is the provisional bond was
sufficient to suspend the running of the 10-day reglementary period to perfect an appeal from the
Labor Arbiter's decision, the court denied this argument due to the fact that the check submitted
by petitioner was dishonored upon presentment for payment, thereby rendering the tender thereof
The right to appeal thereto is not a natural right or a part of due process but is merely a statutory
privilege. Thus, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by
law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and failure of a party to conform to the rules
regarding appeal will render the judgment final and executory. Once a decision attains finality, it
becomes the law of the case and can no longer be revised, reviewed, changed or altered.
Therefore, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.


On September 23, 2011, respondents Calixto Borela, bus driver, and Estelo Amarille,
conductor, filed separate complaints against petitioners Dela Rosa Liner, Inc., a public transport
company, for underpayment/non-payment of salaries, holiday pay, overtime pay, service

incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, sick leave and vacation leave, night shift differential, illegal
deductions, and violation of Wage Order Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16.

The petitioners asked the LA to dismiss the case for forum shopping on the ground that they
entered into a compromise agreement which covered all claims and causes of action they had
against each other in relation to the respondents' employment.
The respondents opposed the motion, contending that the causes of action in the present case
are different from the causes of action settled in the case the petitioners cited.
In LA IT upheld the petitioners' position and dismissed the complaint on grounds of forum
shopping. However in NLRC it held that the respondents could not have committed forum
shopping as there was no identity of causes of action between the two cases. . The petitioners
moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion in its resolution of May 21, 2013. the
respondents pray for the denial of the petition for having been filed out of time and for lack of
merit that petitioners councel received a copy of the CA resolution of May 21, 2013, denying
their motion for reconsideration on May 28, 2013, and giving them until June 12, 2013, to file
the petition. The petition, they point out, was notarized only on June 13, 2013, which means
that it was filed only on that day, or beyond the 15-day filing period.

Won petition for review on certiorari was timely filed by petitioner?
The court ruled that petition for review on certiorari timely filed pursuant to Rule 45,
Section 2 of the Rules of Court.
The last day for filing of the petition, as respondents claim, fell on June 12, 2013, Independence
Day, a legal holiday. the Court explained that under Section 1, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court, as
clarified by A.M. 00-2-14 SC (in relation to the filing of pleadings in courts), when the last day
on which a pleading is due falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday, the filing of the
pleading on the next working day is deemed on time. The filing of the petition therefore on June
13, 2013, a working day, fully complied with the rules.