DIGEST/KRIZABEL MARTINEZ/ CONCEJERO v CA & PNB

( Rule 65 )

[ G.R. No. 223262, September 11, 2017 ]

DENNIS M. CONCEJERO, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, RESPONDENTS.

 

FACTS

Dennis M. Concejero, petitioner, was the Assistant Vice-President and Head of the Branch Operations Review Department (BORD) of respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB). As head of the BORD, he was responsible for the overall review of compliance of domestic branches with internal control policies, established procedures and guidelines of the bank, among others. His primary mandate was to eradicate fraud and prosecute fraudsters. Concejero supervised 26 Branch Operations Review Officers in their operations review of all branches, gave authority to convene the Regional Fact-Finding Committees, reviewed the reports and indorsed fraud to legal and audit.

In a Memorandum dated January 24, 2013, respondent PNB, through its Administrative Board, charged petitioner with several acts constituting abuse of authority, concealment of knowledge of commission of fraud, deceit or other forms of irregularity, willful breach of trust resulting in loss of confidence and gross misconduct.

Petitioner was placed under preventive suspension for 30 days, beginning February 8, 2013 until March 9, 2013. PNB's Administrative Board conducted an administrative hearing where both petitioner and his counsel appeared.

On February 13, 2013, PNB, through its Chief Employee Relations Officer, issued an implementing Order on the administrative charge for abuse of authority, concealment, willful breach of trust and confidence against petitioner. Petitioner was further informed that the Board found him guilty of willful breach of trust resulting in loss of confidence and he was meted the penalty of dismissal.

Petitioner filed a Complaint for illegal suspension and dismissal and prayed for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and payment of his full backwages, holiday pay, 13th month pay, allowances, bonuses, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.

On February 18, 2014, the Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioner's dismissal was for a just and valid cause and that he was afforded due process. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.

Petitioner appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC. In a Decision dated July 31, 2014, the NLRC denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC. On October 8, 2014, or 21 days after receipt of the NLRC Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed with the CA a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari. He stated therein that he received the NLRC Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration on September 23, 2014 and that he had until October 8, 2014 (or 15 days) to appeal the Resolution to the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari. He prayed that he be granted 15 days extension or until October 23, 2014 within which to file his petition for certiorari with the appellate court.

Meanwhile, on October 23, 2014, petitioner's counsel filed a Manifestation and Motion stating that in filing the Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari on October 8, 2014, he overlooked Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which provides a period of 60 days to file a petition for certiorari. Hence, his last day to file the petition is on November 22, 2014. He prayed that he be allowed to file his petition on or before November 22, 2014.

On November 24, 2014, petitioner filed his Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. Respondent filed a Comment/Opposition to Manifestation and Motion, praying that petitioner's Manifestation and Motion be denied for lack of merit.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution, which motion was denied by the Court of Appeals.

 

ISSUE

Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion in dismissing petitioner's appeal from the Decision of the NLRC through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court

 

RULING

Yes. The Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion. The decision of the NLRC is appealable to the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court:

“SEC. 4. When and where petition filed. — The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion.

The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.

No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days.”

Petitioner had 60 days to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Since petitioner received the NLRC Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration on September 23, 2014, he had until November 22, 2014 (the 60th day) within which to file his petition. However, November 22, 2014 fell on a Saturday; hence, petitioner had until the next working day or until November 24, 2014 (Monday) to file the petition under Section 1, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court

The Court finds that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the case on November 3, 2014 before the 60-day period to file the petition for certiorari expired. Even if petitioner, who sought an extension of 15 days, or until October 23, 2014 to file the petition for certiorari, failed to file the petition on October 23, 2014, the case, however, was not yet dismissible because petitioner was entitled to a 60-day period within which to file the petition and had until November 24, 2014 to file it. The records show that petitioner timely filed his petition on November 24, 2014.

In effect, petitioner was deprived of the right to file his petition for certiorari within the 60-day period provided by Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Hence, the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the case docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 137479 on November 3, 2014, even if the petition for certiorari was timely filed.