DIGEST/LINALYN BATION/EMCOR INCORPORATED vs MARIA LOURDES D. SIENES

 

[G.R. NO. 152101 : September 8, 2009]

EMCOR INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. MA. LOURDES D. SIENES, Respondent.

 

FACTS:

          Respondent Ma. Lourdes D. Sienes was hired by petitioner as one of its clerks assigned in its Personnel Department. Respondent got married to a Credit Officer of petitioner who had to resign in view of petitioner's policy against husband and wife both working in the company. respondent was terminated from employment due to petitioner's retrenchment program. Consequently, respondent filed a case for illegal dismissal and damages against petitioner alleging that her retrenchment was discriminatory and without basis.

          In its position paper, petitioner argued that respondent was retrenched as part of its cost-cutting measures in order to prevent further losses; that she was served a one-month advance notice, receipt of which she refused to acknowledge.

          The Labor Arbiter found that petitioner's retrenchment program was to prevent further losses, thus, a valid exercise of management prerogative.

          Aggrieved, respondent filed an appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). NLRC, however, dismissed the appeal and affirm Labor Arbiter’s decision.

          On December 8, 1998, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution dated January 11, 1999. She received the Resolution on January 25, 1999; thus, she had until March 20, 1999 to file a Petition for Certiorari with the CA.

          On March 25, 1999, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA. After the parties had filed their respective pleadings, the case was submitted for Decision.

On May 24, 2001, the CA rendered its assailed Decision, which reversed the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed decision is SET ASIDE, and a new one rendered declaring Lourdes' retrenchment as illegal and ordering EMCOR to reinstate Lourdes to her former position with payment of full backwages.

Petitioner alleges that the CA erred in giving due course to the Petition for Certiorari, as the same was filed out of time, and a liberal application of Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure was uncalled for; that both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, being experts in their field and having a good grasp of the over-all conditions then prevailing, affirmed with definiteness the soundness of petitioner's retrenchment program; and that the CA gravely erred and abused its discretion when it reversed the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, since the policy of the court is not to interfere with the exercise of the adjudicatory functions of the administrative bodies, unless there be a showing of arbitrary action or palpable and serious error.

 

ISSUE:

    Whether or not the CA erred in giving due course to respondent's Petition for Certiorari for being filed out of time.

 

RULING:

    No. Records show that respondent received the NLRC decision on December 2, 1998 and filed her motion for reconsideration on December 8, 1998. The NLRC denied the motion for reconsideration, which respondent received on January 25, 1999. Thus, she had only 54 days, i.e., until March 20, 1999, to file the Petition for Certiorari with the CA, in consonance with Circular No. 39-98, which contained the amendments to Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which was in effect when the petition was filed, thus:

SEC. 4. Where and when petition to be filed. - The petition may be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed 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 jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, and unless otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.

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 aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of such denial. No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted, except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days.

Respondent filed the petition on March 25, 1999, and not on March 29, 1999 as erroneously stated by the CA; thus, the petition was indeed filed out of time. However, on September 1, 2000, A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC took effect, amending Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, whereby the 60-day period within which to file the petition shall be counted from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration, if one is filed. We ruled that A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, being a curative statute, should be applied retroactively.