FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 226574. June 3, 2019.]
SR METALS, INC. [SRMI], REPRESENTED BY HONORIO DE LEON, petitioner, vs.JEFFREY ADIONG, ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ, AND DARYL RAMA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 3, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No.226574 (SR METALS, INC. [SRMI],represented by HONORIO DE LEON, Petitioner, v. JEFFREY ADIONG,ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ, and DARYL RAMA, Respondents.) — For Our review are the petitioner's motion for reconsideration 1 of the Court's resolution dated October 19, 2016, 2 and the respondents' motion for partial reconsideration 3 of Our resolution dated June 28, 2017. 4
In its motion for reconsideration, the petitioner argued that the Court erred in denying the petition for review on certiorari because its two (2) motions for extension and subsequent petition should be deemed filed within the prescribed reglementary period. 5
The petitioner was mistaken.
Pursuant to Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules, where pleadings are filed by registered mail, the date of mailing as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt shall be considered as the date of filing. Based on this provision, the date of filing is determinable from two (2) sources: (1) from the post office stamp on the envelope or (2) from the registry receipt, either of which may suffice to prove the timeliness of the filing of the pleadings. 6
A close perusal of the records shows that the petitioner filed its first motion for extension by registered mail on August 17, 2016 7 and not on August 12, 2016 as the petitioner had claimed being the last day of the 15-day reglementary period under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. In the absence of the registry receipt, the Court is constrained to consider only the post office stamp on the envelope indicating August 17, 2016 as the filing date of the first motion for extension.
Anent the respondents' motion for partial reconsideration, the Court finds the same impressed with merit.
The respondents submit that the amounts received by Rama and Rodriguez served only as partial payments and should not be deemed as full satisfaction for their monetary claims. The Court finds these issues were the subject matter of the Labor Arbiter's order dated June 30, 2017 8 and the NLRC's resolution dated March 9, 2018. Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC deemed the amounts paid under the compromise agreements as advance or partial payments of respondents' total monetary claims.
Considering the foregoing, and given the denial of the instant petition for review on certiorari, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in relation to said compromise agreements.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DENY petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated March 17, 2017; GRANT the respondents' Partial Motion for Reconsideration dated August 7, 2017; MODIFIES the Resolution dated June 28, 2017 in that the Court resolves to NOTE WITHOUT ACTION the petitioner's Manifestation (with Prayer for Dismissal of Claims of Respondents by Reason of Execution of Valid Compromise Agreements) dated February 24, 2017.
SO ORDERED."Carandang, J.,on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 528-531.
2.Id. at 513.
3.Id. at 539-544.
4.Id. at 537-538.
5.Id. at 529.
6.Bismonte v. Golden Sunset Resort and Spa, G.R. No. 229326, November 5, 2018.
7.Rollo, p. 8.
8.Id. at 545-552.