ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 143236. July 19, 2000]

DELBROS, INC., vs. CHERUBIN CASPILLO, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 19 2000.

G.R. No. 143236 (Delbros, Inc. vs. Cherubin Caspillo, Court of Appeals and National Labor Relations Commission, 2 nd Division.)

The case is a special civil action for certiorari assailing the resolution of the Court of Appeals,1 In CA-G.R. SP No. 57553. denying the petition for certiorari filed by Delbros, Inc. for having been filed out of time.

Sometime in November 1994, petitioner conducted an investigation of the rampant pilferage of UPS parcels and packages of clients at Delbros Cargo Center in NAIA, Para�aque. As a result of the investigation, petitioner's VP-Corporate Affairs, Juanito R. Carlos, Jr., prepared a memorandum placing respondent Cherubin Caspillo, supervisor of the cargo center, under preventive suspension for suspected violation of company rules regarding pilferage of company property. However, petitioner alleged that before the memorandum was served upon respondent Caspillo, the latter went on absence without leave. For her continued failure to report to work for one month, petitioner furnished respondent Caspillo with a letter of termination.

On November 7, 1994, respondent Caspillo filed a complaint with the labor arbiter, alleging that she had been illegally suspended by petitioner. On February 8, 1995, respondent Caspillo amended her complaint to aver that she had been illegally dismissed by petitioner.

On September 23, 1997, petitioner received the decision of the labor arbiter dated August 28, 1997, ordering the reinstatement of respondent Caspillo to her former position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and benefits with full back wages computed from the time of complainant's dismissal up to her actual reinstatement. Petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

On September 16, 1999, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter but deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages.

On October 11, 1999, petitioner received a copy of the above decision of the NLRC.

On October 21, 1999, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by respondent National Labor Relations Commission in a resolution dated November 12, 1999.2 Rollo , p. 50.

On January 4, 2000, petitioner received notice of the resolution of respondent NLRC, denying the motion for reconsideration.

On March 3, 2000, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, alleging that the NLRC acted in excess of its jurisdiction and/ or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in affirming the decision of the labor arbiter and in denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

On March 17, 2000, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on the ground that it was filed beyond the reglementary period.

Hence, petitioner filed with this Court a special civil action for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals, for dismissing its petition on a technicality, and the NLRC, for affirming the labor arbiter's finding of illegal dismissal.

We dismiss the petition.

Pursuant to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,3 See Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; Circular No. 39-98 dated August 19, 1998. petitioner is given sixty days from notice of the assailed judgment, order or resolution within which to file his petition. However, the filing of a motion for reconsideration interrupts the sixty-day period, and if the motion is denied, the petition may be filed within the remaining period.

Petitioner received a copy of the NLRC decision on October 11, 1999. He filed a motion for reconsideration on October 21, 1999. Thus, from receipt of notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration, which is January 4, 2000, petitioner had fifty days remaining of his reglementary period and only had until February 23, 2000 within which to file his petition. However, the petition was filed on March 3, 2000.

Clearly, the petition was filed out of time.

Hence, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition.

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE