FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 197800. June 19, 2019.]
ALC REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP., INC., AND/OR EDWARD CABANGON CHUA, petitioners, vs.CELEDONIO F. MAQUINDATO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 19, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 197800 (ALC REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP., INC., and/or EDWARD CABANGON CHUA, Petitioners, v. CELEDONIO F. MAQUINDATO, Respondent.) — By this petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the petitioner ALC Realty Development Corp., Inc. seeks to reverse and set aside the decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 103479 dated February 22, 2011, whereby the CA affirmed the resolution 3 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated February 12, 2008 upholding the findings of the Labor Arbiter that the petitioners had illegally dismissed the respondent from his employment.
The CA summarized the facts as follows:
On July 16, 2004, private respondent Celedonio F. Maquindato ("Maquindato"), Jr., filed a Complaint before the Labor Arbiter against petitioner company ALC-RDC Realty, Inc. ("ALC-RDC") and petitioner Edward Cabangon Chua ("Chua") for illegal dismissal and moral and exemplary damages. HTcADC
In his position paper, private respondent Maquindato alleged that he was engaged as a motel supervisor by ALC-RDC on February 14, 1984, and served the company for a period of twenty (20) years. On April 15, 2004, he was unceremoniously, and without justifiable cause, verbally terminated by Chua. Hence, the complaint against petitioners before the Labor Arbiter.
As stated by the Labor Arbiter in its Decision dated April 28, 2006, no representation appeared for the petitioners in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter despite receipt of notice to appear on the hearing on August 23, 2004. Five (5) more successive notices of hearing were received by petitioners but it was only on December 14, 2004, after the case was considered submitted for decision on November 12, 2004, that petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss instead of a position paper.
Deciding on the complaint, the Labor Arbiter found private respondent Maquindato to have been illegally dismissed, holding that there was a total absence of due process in petitioners' termination of Maquindato. The Labor Arbiter held that a mere motion to dismiss, filed by respondents only after the case was deemed submitted for decision and without substantiating their claim of lack of employer-employee relationship has no leg to stand on. The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter's decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents are hereby declared guilty of illegal dismissal and ORDERED to reinstate complainant to his former position with full backwages from date of dismissal until actual reinstatement. See attached computation.
Finally, respondents are hereby directed to pay complainant moral damages and exemplary damages in the sum of P100,000.00 and P50,000.00 respectively.
SO ORDERED.
Private respondent received a copy of the decision of June 16, 2006. Finding the Labor Arbiter's decision erroneous when it based the computation of his backwages from April 15, 2005 instead of the correct date of his termination which was on April 15, 2004, private respondent Maquindato appealed the decision before the NLRC on July 3, 2006. CAIHTE
On the other hand, petitioners received a copy of the decision also on June 16, 2006. On August 15, 2006, petitioners filed a petition for relief from judgment before the NLRC maintaining they were clearly not the employers of private respondent Maquindato, who indicated in his complaint that he was employed as motel supervisor of Orchid Hotel Corporation. Attaching only its payroll register to the petition for relief from judgment, petitioners insist that it cannot be considered a real and proper party to the case since the payroll register is competent proof that Maquindato is not one of its employees.
Public respondent NLRC resolved private respondent Maquindato's appeal and petitioners' petition for relief from judgment in the Assailed Resolution, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Complainant's appeal is GRANTED. The Labor Arbiter's Decision in this case is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The typographical error in the body thereof must be corrected to indicate April 15, 2004 as the date of Complainant's illegal dismissal. Complainant's award of full backwages must be correspondingly corrected and re-computed, reckoned from April 16, 2004.
Respondents' Petition for Relief from Judgment is hereby DISMISSED, the same not being allowed by the NLRC Rules of Procedure and for lack of jurisdiction on the part of this Commission to set aside the Labor Arbiter's final and executory Decision.
SO ORDERED.
Without filing a Motion for Reconsideration of public respondent NLRC's Assailed Resolution, petitioners filed the instant Petition for Certiorari with this Court. 4
Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, but the CA denied the same in the now assailed decision. The CA held that the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion when it dismissed the petition for relief from judgment because the same will not be granted to a party who had lost a remedy because of negligence or via a mistaken mode of procedure. The CA opined that to allow such petition to prosper will be tantamount to reviving the right of appeal which has already been lost either because of inexcusable negligence or due to mistaken mode of procedure by counsel.
Our Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
The Court notes that despite their having been duly notified of the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, the petitioners had unjustifiably failed to appear during the scheduled hearings. As such, we cannot fault the Labor Arbiter in submitting the case for decision on November 12, 2004 on the belief that the petitioners had no interest in defending their cause after having received five (5) successive notices of hearing. It was only on December 14, 2004 that the petitioners decided to belatedly participate in the proceedings by submitting a motion to dismiss, a prohibited pleading, instead of a position paper. aScITE
Furthermore, the petitioners mistakenly availed of a wrong remedy by filing a petition for relief from judgment instead of an appeal. Notably, Section 15 of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC prohibits the filing of a petition for relief.
Thusly, the CA cannot be wrong in holding that the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion. Since the decision of the Labor Arbiter had already become final and executory due to the petitioners' failure to timely file an appeal, the NLRC had properly ruled that it had no jurisdiction to set aside the final and executory decision of the Labor Arbiter.
There being no reversible error that may be attributed to the CA, the assailed decision should be affirmed.
ACCORDINGLY, We DENY the petition and AFFIRM the February 22, 2011 decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 103479.
The withdrawal of appearance of Atty. Nico Carlo M. Crisologo of the Public Attorney's Office, Special and Appealed Cases Service, as counsel for respondent, stating that the respondent brought a letter stating his desire to withdraw the representation of the Public Attorney's Office as counsel on his behalf, thereto attached copy of the handwritten of the respondent, is NOTED and GRANTED; the entry of appearance of Atty. Jhoel P. Raquedan of Raquedan Law Offices as counsel for respondent is NOTED, and his request that copies of all legal notices and processes of the Court for the respondent in connection with this case be sent at Unit 304, 3/F Capitol Masonic Corporation (CMC) Building 2, No. 37 Matalino Street, Brgy. Central, 1100 Quezon City, is GRANTED; the respondent's motion to admit the thereto attached rejoinder to the supplemental reply dated March 4, 2013, is DENIED for being a prohibited pleading, pursuant to A.M. No. 99-2-04-SC dated 5 March 1999; and the respondent's rejoinder to the supplemental reply dated March 4, 2013, stating, among others, that the petitioners, in their motion for leave to admit supplemental reply to the comment on the petition for review on certiorari, attached several documents to support their position in this case which are contrary to the prevailing doctrines regarding submission of new evidence on appeal for reasons stated therein, is EXPUNGED. DETACa
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 7-19.
2.Id. at 209-216; penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. with Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino concurring.
3.Id. at 36-42.
4.Supra note 2, at 209-212.