ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 144879. March 5, 2001]

MANILA HOTEL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION et al. vs. NLRC et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 5 2001.

G.R No. 144879 (Manila Hotel Employees Association et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission et al.)

Assailed in the Petition for Review before us are the July 31, 2000 and September 7, 2000 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 59601. The first dismissed the Petition for being violative of Section 3, paragraph 4, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Court, "it appearing that the verification - certification of non-forum shopping was signed by one Ferdinand R. Barles as alleged President of the petitioner Union, the Manila Hotel Employees Association, without any showing or indication that he was actually the president of the said Union, and that he was duly authorized to sign for and bind all the petitioners in these proceedings." (Rollo, pp. 180-181.) The second denied the Motion for Reconsideration "for being filed out of time." (Rollo, pp. 183-184)

Deliberating on the Petition for Review, Comment and Reply before us, the Court resolves that petitioners have failed to show any reversible error on the part of the appellate court.

The main Resolution of the CA dismissing the petition for its defective verification has become final because petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was filed late.

Section 2, Rule 9 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals clearly provides that "[t]he motion f or reconsideration shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision 'or resolution x x x. The period for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible." Instead of a motion for reconsideration, a petition for review may be also filed before this Court within the same period (Section 2, Rule 45, Rules of Court). Otherwise, the CA resolution would become final and executory. Verily, the reglementary period for filing petitions and motions for reconsideration is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. (Ditching v. CA, 263 SCRA 343; Republic v. CA, GR No. 129846, January 18, 2000). It is essential for the orderly discharge of judicial business and considered indispensable' interdictions against needless delays. (Videogram Regulatory Board v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 50; Sta. Rita v. CA, 247 SCRA 484). Hence, it is not a "mere technicality," and parties cannot escape from the rigid observance thereof. As held in Videogram Regulatory Board, "(j)ust as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his/her case."

In this case, petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was filed before the CA on August 23, 2000. Relying on the Registry Return Card which indicated that a copy of the first assailed CA Resolution was received in the office of petitioners' counsel on August 7, 2000, or 16 days earlier and beyond the reglementary period, the CA ruled that the Motion was filed late. The CA's conclusion is a factual finding that is binding upon this Court, which after all is not a trier of facts.

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review is DENIED for failure to show reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

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