SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 256938. January 3, 2022.]
MERLITA U. DELOS SANTOS, petitioner,vs. ULTRATECH PRINTING CORPORATION and KAREN KHO LI, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 January 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 256938 (Merlita U. Delos Santos v. Ultratech Printing Corporation and Karen Kho Li). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS outright the instant petition 1 for being filed out of time.
Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner Merlita U. Delos Santos (petitioner) had fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Court of Appeals' (CA) Resolution 2 dated June 14, 2021 denying her Motion for Reconsideration to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari3 before the Court. Records reveal that petitioner received the CA's Resolution denying her motion on June 28, 2021, and thus, had fifteen (15) days from such receipt, or until July 13, 2021, to file a petition for review on certiorari before the Court. On July 13, 2021, petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari, 4 praying for a thirty (30)-day extension from July 13, 2021, or until August 12, 2021, within which to file the instant petition, which was granted by the Court in a Resolution 5 dated July 28, 2021. However, the instant petition was filed only on August 26, 2021, which was beyond the extended period sought. Relevantly, petitioner cited Administrative Circular No. 56-2021, which ordered the physical closure of courts in the National Capital Region from August 2, 2021 to August 20, 2021, thereby declaring that the time for filing and service of pleadings and motions during the said period is suspended and shall resume after seven (7) calendar days, counted from the first day of the physical reopening of the relevant court. However, it should be noted that the said administrative circular applies only to all courts and judicial offices in the National Capital Region, except the Supreme Court, considering that the said issuance was intended only for 'ALL JUSTICES OF THE APPELLATE COLLEGIATE COURTS, JUDGES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS, COURT PERSONNEL THEREOF, AND COURT USERS.'
In any event, the Court finds that the CA did not err in ruling that petitioner was not illegally dismissed. It bears stressing that findings of fact of the labor tribunals, as affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court, 6 and are not to be disturbed unless they fall under the recognized exceptions, 7 which are not present in this case.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-35.
2.Id. at 46-47.
3.Id. at 3-7.
4.Id. at 3-4.
5.Id. at 10. Signed by Division Clerk of Court Teresita Aquino Tuazon.
6. See Valencia v. Classique Vinyl Products Corporation, 804 Phil. 492, 503-504 (2017).
7.Cirtek Employees Labor Union Federation of Free Workers v. Cirtek Electronics, 665 Phil. 784-789 (2011).