ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 144646.September 26, 2001]
LOMAN vs. CA et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 26 2001.
G.R. No. 144646 (Naty Loman vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)
The petition for review on certiorari before us assails the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, respectively promulgated on 03 April 2000 and 12 July 2000, dismissing the special civil action for certiorari on the ground that the certification of non-forum shopping was signed by petitioner's counsel, and dismissing petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
While this Court, when justified by circumstances and in the interest of justice, would at times apply its rules liberally, there was no showing here that there was sufficient ground for us to effect such liberal application of the rules. Granting arguendo that there was sufficient compliance with Section 1, Rule 65 in relation with Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition would still be dismissible for late filing, entry of judgment having been in the meantime entered in NLRC Case No. RAB-CAR-01-08-0612-90. Petitioner alleged that she did not receive the NLRC resolution denying her motion for reconsideration and she only received a copy of the entry of judgment. This was belied by the certification issued by Mr. Bernardo B. Ticuala, Postmaster V of Baguio City, to the effect that a copy of the NLRC resolution, sent by registered mail, was received by one Rosy Capaang, househelper of petitioner's counsel. Notice to counsel is notice to parties and when a party is represented by counsel, all notices emanating from the court should be made upon the counsel of record at his given address (Rural Bank of Alaminos Employees Union vs. NLRC, 317 SCRA 669, 1999).
In view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH