[ G.R. No. 141969. April 12, 2000]

ROMAROSA REALTY DEV'T. CORP. vs. NLRC

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 12 2000.

G.R. No. 141969 (Romarosa Realty Development Corporation vs. NLRC.)

For resolution before this Court are petitioners' (a) Motion for Extension To File Petition for Review, dated March 7, 2000, and (b) the aforesaid petition for Review, dated March 20, 2000.

Private respondents Roberto Ca�ete, Dionisio Reyes and Esigfredo Fernandez are employees of petitioner Romarosa Realty Development Corporation. They were dismissed sometime in August 1996, for which reason they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unpaid wages with the arbitration branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On December 10, 1997, Labor Arbiter Vladimir P.L. Sampang issued a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents are ordered to pay complainants the following amounts corresponding to the difference between complainant's salaries and the minimum wages under Wage Order Nos. NCR-02, NCR-03 and NCR-04 and the PADPAO.

As far as the claims for monetary benefits and illegal dismissal are concerned, the same are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

Private respondents appealed to the NLRC which, on November 18, 1998, rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which states:

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision is affirmed with modification. Respondents-appellees are hereby ordered to pay complainants-appellants Dionisio Reyes, Esigfredo Fernandez and Roberto Ca�ete as follows:

1. Dionisio Reyes������������������������������������������ P160,316.50

2. Esigfredo Fernandez��������������������������������� P160,316.50

3. Roberto Ca�ete���������������������������������������� [not legible]

petitioners received a copy of the decision on December 7, 1998. They, thus, had until February 5, 1999 within which to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. (St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998). They files a motion for reconsideration which, however, was denied by the NLRC on December 17, 1998. A copy of the resolution denying their motion was received by them on February 15, 1999. On February 25, 1999, petitioners filed a second motion for reconsideration which was denied on March 14, 1999. It does not appear from the records when petitioners received a copy of this resolution.

On April 16, 1999, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. However, their petition was dismissed on May 17, 1999 for having been filed out of time.

Petitioners moved for reconsideration but their motion was likewise denied on June 23, 1999. Hence, this petition.

The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for having been filed out of time.

As the Court of Appeals held:

Per petitioners' manifestation, they received a copy of the appealed Decision dated November 18, 1998 on December 7, 1998. Petitioners seasonably filed their Motion for Reconsideration on December 17, 1998 or ten (10) days from receipt thereof. Public respondent National Labor Relations Commission denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration on January 14, 1999 in a resolution petitioners received on February 15, 1999. On April 16, 1999 or sixty (60) days from said date, petitioners filed the present petition for certiorari.

Paragraph 2, Sec. 4 of Rule 65 (1997 Rules of Civil Procedure), as amended by Bar Matter No. 803 (Re: Correction of clerical errors in and adoption of amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) provides as follows:

If the petitioner had filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration in due time after notice of said judgment, order or resolution, the period herein fixed shall be interrupted. If the motion is denied, the aggrived party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from the notice of such denial. No extension of time shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days." (stress supplied) [Circular No. 39-98].

Petitioners' manifestation of material dates vis a vis the foregoing provision shows that the petition was filed out of time.

The sixty (60) day reglementary period to file petition for certiorari commenced to run for petitioners upon receipt a copy of public respondent's decision on December 7, 1999. The period ran for ten (10) days and was interrupted only when petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. Upon receipt on February 15, 1999 of the resolution denying their motion, the period to file petition for certiorari tolled anew giving thence petitioners fifty (50) days, the unconsumed portion of the original sixty (60) day period, or until April 6, 1999, to file their petition. The petition for certiorari filed on April 16, 1999, which is beyond April 6, 1999, is thus, deemed file out of time.

The filing of the first motion for reconsideration, interrupted the running of the period to file a petition for certiorari. This period commenced to run again when petitioners, on February 15, 1999, received their copy of the NLRC resolution denying their motion for reconsideration. At that time, petitioners had only 50 days, or until April 6, 1999, to file their petition with the Court of Appeals. The filing of the second motion for reconsideration did not toll the running of the prescriptive period as such pleading is not allowed under the NLRC Rules.

Hence, when petitioners filed their petition for review with the Court of Appeals on April 16, 1999, the period provided under Rule 65 of the 1999 Rules of Civil Procedure already lapsed.

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby RESOLVES to (a) GRANT petitioners' motion for extension, dated March 7, 2000, and (b) DENY the petition, dated March 20, 2000, for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com