THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 205462. September 27, 2017.]
TLC BEATRICE FOODS, PHIL., INC., petitioner,vs. ROMEO S. ACADEMIA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 27, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 205462 (TLC BEATRICE FOODS, PHIL., INC., Petitioner, v. ROMEO S. ACADEMIA, Respondent.) — Under review is the decision promulgated on July 4, 2012, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) granted the petition for certiorari filed by the respondent; reversed and set aside the decision dated December 24, 2008 2 and the resolution dated July 28, 2009 issued by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC); and reinstated the decision rendered on May 18, 2006 by the Labor Arbiter (LA) declaring the respondent to have been illegally dismissed, and ordering the petitioner to pay attorney's fees and full backwages reckoned from the time of his dismissal until the finality of the decision. 3
Antecedents
The antecedents are stated in the CA's assailed decision as follows:
Petitioner Romeo Academia claimed that he was hired as an IT and Business Development Manager by Private Respondent TLC Beatrice Foods Philippines, Inc. Sometime in June 2004, he was informed by Private Respondent that as a consequence of a Retrenchment Program, his position is to be changed to "consultant" and his status as a regular employee would be changed to contractual, with a reduction in pay. After 2 months, Petitioner was notified that his position as "consultant" is terminated. In September 29, 2004, Private Respondent filed a criminal case for estafa against Petitioner alleging misappropriation of proceeds of sales to clients, as well as meat products, of Private Respondent.
On the basis of the foregoing and for failure to receive payment of his salaries, separation pay and other benefits, Petitioner filed a complaint for constructive dismissal and unfair labor practice against Private Respondent. He also claimed payment of backwages, separation pay and damages.
Private Respondent denied that Petitioner was illegally dismissed. It claimed that the company was forced to implement a retrenchment program primarily because of massive losses caused by theft of meat products and misappropriation of funds by some of its employees, including Petitioner. Private Respondent blamed the increase in overhead expenses to erroneous business decisions, and lack of supply of meat products resulting in the losses it experienced. Private Respondent was constrained to file a criminal case against Petitioner suspecting the latter of involvement in the financial anomalies.
Private Respondent also claimed that it complied with the procedural requirements of a valid retrenchment by giving notices to Petitioner and the Department of Labor and Employment.
Private Respondent also questioned the filing by Petitioner of the instant complaint. It claimed that the assent of Petitioner to the consultancy employment contract prior to his termination was equivalent to his consent to the retrenchment. 4
Ruling of the LA
In the decision dated May 18, 2006, 5 the LA ruled in favor of the respondent, disposing thusly:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that complainant Romeo Academia to have been illegally dismissed and respondent company is hereby ordered, to wit:
1. To pay the complainant backwages from the time of his illegal dismissal up to the date of this decision in the amount of P1,350,000.00 and P60,000.00 as separation pay.
2. To pay attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total award.
3. All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 6
The LA observed that the petitioner had not presented sufficient evidence to prove losses; 7 and that had it believed that he was responsible for the financial irregularities in the company, it should have terminated his services for just cause, without prejudice to the filing of appropriate criminal charges against him. 8
Ruling of the NLRC
As stated, the NLRC reversed the LA, and dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal for its lack of merit, 9 decreeing in the decision dated December 24, 2008:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED and the assailed Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit. 10
The NLRC declared that the petitioner had satisfied the standards required for a valid retrenchment; 11 that it had implemented cost-saving measures, such as reduction of the size of the head office and amenities and reduction of personnel; 12 that an examination of the audit report prepared by independent public accountants revealed that substantial losses were imminent; 13 and that the respondent was estopped from questioning his retrenchment because he had accepted the new appointment as consultant after his lay-off in June 2004. 14
The NLRC noted that the respondent's counsel of record, Atty. Efren G. Santos, had received a copy of the decision of the NLRC dated December 24, 2008 on January 20, 2009, but Atty. Santos' collaborating counsel, Atty. Benito Ambrosio, had moved for reconsideration of the adverse decision only on May 15, 2009.
In a resolution dated July 28, 2009, 15 the NLRC denied the respondent's motion for reconsideration, and declared the December 24, 2008 decision as final and executory because of his failure to file the motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period. ATICcS
Decision of the CA
The respondent assailed the dispositions of the NLRC in the CA by petition for certiorari, alleging that the NLRC had thereby committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
On July 4, 2012, the CA promulgated its decision granting the petition for certiorari and setting aside the ruling of the NLRC, 16 pronouncing thusly:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision, dated December 24, 2008, and Resolution, dated July 28, 2009, of Public Respondent are hereby SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated May 18, 2006 is ordered REINSTATED. No costs.
SO ORDERED. 17
On the procedural issue, the CA opined that Atty. Ambrosio had received the December 24, 2008 decision only on May 9, 2009, and had immediately moved for reconsideration on May 11, 2009; that in its opposition (to the motion for reconsideration) the petitioner did not raise the timeliness of filing the motion as an issue; and that substantial justice was best served by giving due course to the petition for certiorari despite its procedural deficiency. 18
Resolving the substantive grounds, the CA concluded that the petitioner did not substantiate its claim of actual and imminent substantial losses that would justify the retrenchment of its employees; that the profit and loss statement had not been signed by a certified public accountant nor audited by an independent auditor; 19 that the hiring of new employees and subsequent rehiring of retrenched employees manifested bad faith; 20 and that the petitioner did not follow fair criteria in the selection of the employees to be retrenched. 21
The petitioner moved for reconsideration, but its motion therefor was denied for lack of merit. 22
Issues
Hence, this appeal by the petitioner upon the following grounds, viz.:
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GROSS ERROR, ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND IN THE PROCESS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE IN GIVING DUE COURSE TO RESPONDENT'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND PROMULGATING A DECISION IN A CASE ALTHOUGH THE NLRC DECISION DATED DECEMBER 24, 2008 HAD LONG BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY.
II.
COROLLARILY, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ALSO COMMITTED GROSS ERROR, ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE IN GIVING DUE COURSE TO THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED IN THE NAME OF RESPONDENT BY HIS MOTHER WHO WAS NOT DULY AND PROPERLY AUTHORIZED FOR THAT PURPOSE.
III.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GROSS ERROR, ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE IN REVERSING THE FACTUAL FINDINGS AND JUDGMENT OF THE NLRC HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT'S SEPARATION OR DISMISSAL FROM PETITIONER'S SERVICE WAS DUE TO RETRENCHMENT AND HIS COMMISSION OF FIDUCIARY ANOMALIES WARRANTING HIS DISMISSAL FOR GROSS MISCONDUCT AND FOR LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE. 23
The petitioner argues that the CA erred in giving due course to the respondent's petition for certiorari and in promulgating its decision inasmuch as the NLRC decision had already become final and executory; that the petition for certiorari was filed by his mother, who had not been duly and properly authorized for the purpose; that by accepting his new appointment as consultant after his lay-off in June 2004, he was estopped from challenging his retrenchment; and that he was properly dismissed for cause, i.e., gross misconduct and loss of trust and confidence.
The respondent counters that the petitioner did not state the existing law that had been breached by the decision of the CA; and that the issues being raised here are factual in nature.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
Section 14, Rule VII of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC (NLRC Rules) provides that the decisions, resolutions or orders of the NLRC shall become final and executory after 10 calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties, and that the entry of judgment shall be made upon the expiration of said period. 24
The NLRC Rules, like the Rules of Court, are promulgated by authority of law, and have the force and effect of law. As such, the NLRC Rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done or proceedings must be taken are considered indispensable to the prevention of delays and the orderly and speedy discharge of justice. 25 It is only in highly meritorious cases that the Court may opt not to strictly apply the rules of procedure in order to prevent grave injustice from being done. 26
The circumstances obtaining herein do not convince us to consider the filing by the respondent of the petition for certiorari in the CA an exception. The records established that the respondent's counsel of record, Atty. Santos, had received the NLRC's decision dated December 24, 2008 on January 20, 2009; hence, he had 10 calendar days from January 20, 2009, or until January 30, 2009, within which to file a motion for reconsideration of the decision. But he did not timely file such motion.
Only on May 15, 2009 did Atty. Ambrosio file the motion for reconsideration in behalf of the respondent. Such filing by Atty. Ambrosio, even as the collaborating counsel, and by then, it was too belated for the motion to be considered at all. To start with, the failure to file the motion for reconsideration within 10 calendar days from January 20, 2009 rendered the decision of the NLRC final and immutable; thus shutting the door to that remedy. Secondly, the filing of the motion for reconsideration on May 15, 2009 on the pretext that Atty. Ambrosio had received the copy of the December 24, 2008 decision only on May 9, 2009 was ineffectual. The reckoning for the filing of the motion for reconsideration in respect of the respondent was from when Atty. Santos received the decision of December 24, 2008 because he had not withdrawn his appearance as counsel for the respondent, not from when Atty. Ambrosio received such decision. And, lastly, neither Atty. Santos nor Atty. Ambrosio offered a valid justification for the very belated filing of the motion for reconsideration. Atty. Ambrosio's sole explanation was that he had received the decision only on May 9, 2009. Yet, the explanation was unacceptable considering that in the protection of the interest of their client it was his duty as a collaborating counsel to work in partnership and coordination with Atty. Santos, the counsel of record. TIADCc
In this regard, the respondent shared the blame. The Court has constantly reminded that party-litigants had the duty to communicate with their respective counsel to ensure their being informed of the progress of their cases. In his case, the respondent neglected his plain duty to maintain regular contact with his attorneys. Only he could have discharged such a personal duty. He undeniably did not exercise the degree of care reasonably expected of an ordinary prudent man in the handling of his affairs. 27
The decision issued on December 24, 2008 by the NLRC was already final and immutable by the time Atty. Ambrosio moved for reconsideration nearly four months from Atty. Santos's receipt of the decision. The finality and immutability occurred on January 31, 2009, the day following the lapse of the period of 10 calendar days from January 20, 2009, the last day for the respondent to file the motion for reconsideration. Under the doctrine of immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is intended to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law, and whether the modification be made by the court which rendered it or by the highest court of the land. 28 The principle is based on considerations of public policy and sound practice, such that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of the court must become final at a definite date set by law. 29
Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which defines the time within which a petition for certiorari may be filed in order to assail a final and executory judgment, order or resolution on jurisdictional grounds, specifically states:
Section 4. When and where petition filed. — The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of the said motion.
The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in the aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
In election cases involving an act or an omission of a municipal or a regional trial court, the petition shall be filed exclusively with the Commission on Elections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. (Bold underscoring supplied for easier reference)
Based on the rule, the 60-day period is counted either from notice of the judgment, order or resolution, or, should a motion for reconsideration be filed, from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration that is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not. Considering that the motion for reconsideration of Atty. Ambrosio was not timely filed, the period of 60 days for the respondent to file the petition for certiorari could only be reckoned from the receipt of the decision of the NLRC by Atty. Santos, not from the receipt of the CA's denial of the motion for reconsideration by Atty. Ambrosio; otherwise, the rule would be set to naught and rendered inutile. Irrefragably, therefore, the CA gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in giving due course to the respondent's petition for certiorari despite the lapse of the period for filing of the petitioner as set by Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. This, because the CA acted whimsically and arbitrarily in disregarding Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court in taking cognizance of and giving due course to the petition for certiorari of the respondent.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for review on certiorari; ANNULS and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on July 4, 2012; and DECLARES the decision issued on December 24, 2008 by the National Labor Relations Commission as final and executory.
No pronouncement on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 44-55; penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam (now a Member of the Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, and Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon.
2.Id. at 61-68.
3.Id. at 70-77.
4.Id. at 45-46.
5.Id. at 70-77.
6.Id. at 77.
7.Id. at 76.
8.Id. at 75.
9.Id. at 61-68.
10.Id. at 68.
11.Id. at 66.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 67.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 78-79.
16.Id. at 44-55.
17.Id. at 55.
18.Id. at 49-50.
19.Id. at 52.
20. Id. at 53.
21. Id. at 54.
22. Id. at 58-60.
23. Id. at 18-19.
24. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 202791, June 10, 2013, 698 SCRA 280, 287.
25. Corporate Inn Hotel v. Lizo, G.R. No. 148279, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 573, 577.
26. Id. at 578.
27. MP Acebedo Optical Shops/Acebedo Optical Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 165284, April 16, 2008, 551 SCRA 569, 575.
28. Sofio v. Valenzuela, G.R. No. 157810, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 55, 65.
29. Id.