SECOND DIVISION
[UDK-15502. February 17, 2021.]
DANILO CUSTODIO AND JUCELO B. CADERAO, petitioners,vs. PABLETO PETEROS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated17 February 2021which reads as follows:
"UDK-15502 (Danilo Custodio and Jucelo B. Caderao v. Pableto Peteros). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 2 dated December 11, 2015 in CA-G.R. SP No. 140161 which dismissed the special civil action for certiorari questioning the Labor Arbiter's (LA) Order 3 dated November 7, 2014 that denied the third-party claims.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the petition for review on certiorari, the Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the CA's Decision dismissing the special civil action for certiorari. As the Rule now stands, petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within sixty (60) days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration. There can no longer be any extension of the 60-day period within which to file a petition for certiorari. 4 Here, petitioners Danilo Custodio and Jucelo B. Caderao (petitioners) received the LA's Order dated November 7, 2014 on November 12, 2014. From receipt of the said Order, petitioners have 60 days or until January 12, 2015 to file a petition for certiorari. However, petitioners filed the petition for certiorari before the CA only on April 27, 2015 or 166 days late and way beyond the reglementary period as provided under the Rules of Court. Thus, the CA correctly dismissed the petition for having been filed out of time. Accordingly, the LA's Order dated November 7, 2014 is now deemed final and executory. CAIHTE
Moreover, it is settled that the special civil action for certiorari is not a substitute for lost appeal. In the ordinary course of law, a party aggrieved by any Order of the LA issued during execution proceedings is to file a verified petition for Extraordinary Remedy before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Notably, petitioners availed this remedy but was dismissed for non-perfection due to failure to attach the required documents. As the CA aptly observed, "[h]aving lost their remedy through their own fault, petitioners cannot now seek refuge in a petition for certiorari." 5
Lastly, the CA correctly ruled that the LA did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in denying the third-party claims. Rule XI, Section 14 of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure is explicit that a third-party claim must comply with the requirement of "[p]osting of a cash or surety bond equivalent to the amount of the claim or judgment award." Yet, petitioners did not post a cash or surety bond. Verily, the mere act of filing third-party claims without posting the required bond is insufficient to cause the suspension of the execution sale of the levied properties. At any rate, petitioners failed to show any meritorious or exceptional ground to warrant the liberal application of rules. 6 aScITE
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 7-27.
2.Id. at 28-40; penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Leoncia R. Dimagiba and Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a Member of this Court).
3.Id. at 71-74.
4.Laguna Metts Corp. v. CA, 594 Phil. 530, 536-537 (2009).
5.Rollo, p. 35.
6.Intertranz Container Lines, Inc. v. Bautista, 639 Phil. 86, 95 (2010).