FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240107. August 8, 2018.]
ZITH C. JUNTILLA, petitioner,vs. EDI-STAFFBUILDERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND BNG TRADING COMPANY, LTD., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 8, 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 240107 — Zith C. Juntilla, petitioner, vs. EDI-Staffbuilders International, Inc. and BNG Trading Company, Ltd., respondents.
Considering the allegations, issues and arguments raised in the Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for: (a) failure of petitioner to pay P1,000.00 for the required Sheriff's Trust Fund per A.M. No. 17-12-09-SC as the amount remitted was only P3,530.00; and (b) failure of petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error as to warrant the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Petitioner insists that the CA, in denying his Petition for Certiorari, only discussed the issue on the late filing of his Motion for Reconsideration before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). 1 He claims that the CA "did not take into consideration that the instant case is impressed with merit, novelty, and serious jurisdictional issue" that adversely affected his substantive rights. 2 He thus prays that the Court dispense with the technical rules of procedure and decide the case based on its merits. 3
Section 15, Rule VII of the NLRC Rules of Procedure provides:
SECTION 15. Motions for Reconsideration. — Motion for reconsideration of any decision, resolution or order of the Commission shall not be entertained except when based on palpable or patent errors; provided that the motion is under oath and filed within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of decision, resolution or order, with proof of service that a copy of the same has been furnished, within the reglementary period, the adverse party; and provided further, that only one such motion from the same party shall be entertained. (Emphasis supplied.)
xxx xxx xxx
In this case, petitioner received a copy of the assailed NLRC Decision on March 3, 2016. 4 However, he filed his Motion for Reconsideration only on March 18, 2016, or beyond the ten-day reglementary period to file the motion per the NLRC Rules of Procedure. 5 The CA, therefore, correctly ruled that the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration for having been filed out of time.
Although it is true that litigation is not a mere game of technicalities, the excuse "inadvertence owing to heavy work load of counsel" simply cannot justify the relaxation of the procedural rules. 6 "Heavy workload is relative and often self-serving." 7 aScITE
"Verily, a party who fails to question an adverse decision by not filing the proper remedy within the period prescribed by law loses the right to do so as the decision, as to him, becomes final and binding." 8 Considering that the assailed NLRC Decision had long become final and executory, the Court can no longer exercise appellate jurisdiction to review the same. 9
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the August 25, 2017 Decision and the May 17, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 07614-MIN.
SO ORDERED."Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 26.
2.Id.
3.Id. at 27.
4.Id. at 93.
5.Id.
6.Naguit v. San Miguel Corporation, 761 Phil. 184, 191 (2015).
7.Id.
8.Rivelisa Realty, Inc. v. First Sta. Clara Builders Corp., 724 Phil. 508, 517 (2014).
9.Id.