ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 133372. July 1, 1999]

CATHOLIC WOMEN'S LEAGUE, et al. vs. NLRC, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated JUL 1, 1999.

G.R. No.133372 (Catholic Women's League, Pe�afrancia Parish Unit vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Milagros T. Satparam.)

Sought to be annulled and set aside are the decision and resolution dated January 17, 1998 and April 15, 1998, respectively, of the National Labor Relations Commission.

Private respondent Milagros T. Satraparam was a member of the petitioner who worked as a teacher at petitioner's nursery school beginning June, 1985.

On May 10, 1995, private respondent received a termination letter. She thereupon accused petitioner of illegally dismissing her which charge was overruled by the labor arbiter on the ground of lawful redundancy, but nevertheless, payment of separation pay was ordered.

Aggrieved by the labor arbiter's decision, private respondent appealed to the NLRC which appeal she later withdrew.

Petitioner, on the other hand, having failed to appeal, filed a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which was subsequently dismissed for lack of merit by the NLRC.

Hence, this instant petition which we find devoid of merit.

A careful consideration of the petition indicates a failure of the petitioner to show that grave abuse of discretion had indeed been committed by the NLRC.

The NLRC was correct in its point that the mistake, accident, or excusable negligence relied upon by petitioner was it very failure to seasonably file an appeal. the grounds contemplated under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court are certainly not the kind alluded to by petitioner. Loss of petitioner's right to appeal through negligence of counsel does not justify granting relief for the negligence of counsel is binding on the client (Cabales vs. Tan Nery, 94 SCRA 374 [1979]).

Admittedly, petitioner having duly received a copy of the decision of the labor arbiter, failed to pursue an appeal within the time allowed by law allowing the judgment to become final and executory.

The rule is that relief will not be granted when the loss of the remedy of appeal was due to one's own negligence, or mistaken mode of procedure; otherwise, the petition for relief will be tantamount to reviving the right of appeal which has already been lost either because of inexcusable negligence or due to mistake in the mode of procedure by counsel (Espinosa vs. Yatco, 7 SCRA 78 [1963]).

WHEREDORE, petition is dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA B.MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE