SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253151. January 13, 2021.]
BELINDA L. TORRES, petitioner,vs. STI COLLEGE, DAVAO AND PETER K. FERNANDEZ, PRESIDENT, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 13 January 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253151 (Belinda L. Torres vs. STI College, Davao and Peter K. Fernandez, President). —
The Court resolves to:
1. GRANT respondents' Motion for Leave (to file Comment on the Petition for Review on Certiorari) dated September 18, 2020, praying that they be allowed to file the attached comment in the interest of substantial justice, and NOTE aforesaid Comment (re: Petition for Review on Certiorari dated June 29, 2020) dated September 18, 2020; and
2. INFORM petitioner that she or her authorized representative may personally claim from the Cash Disbursement and Collection Division of this Court the excess payment of the prescribed legal fees in the amount of P1,470.00 under O.R. No. 0281584 dated September 15, 2020.
Records show that on February 21, 2019, petitioner Belinda Torres and her co-employee Jocelyn Tumambing received copy of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Decision 1 dated February 13, 2019 and filed their Motion for Reconsideration 2 on March 4, 2019. Petitioners received the Resolution of denial on April 1, 2019. HTcADC
From April 1, 2019, they had sixty (60) days or until May 31, 2019 to file a special civil action for certiorari pursuant to Section 4, Rule 65 3 of the Rules of Court. But, they did so only on June 6, 2019, or six (6) days late. Since it was filed out of time, the assailed NLRC dispositions had already become final and executory. The Court of Appeals therefore did not acquire jurisdiction over their petition for certiorari directed against such final and executory NLRC dispositions.
The perfection of appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional. 4 Failure to interpose a timely appeal (or a motion for reconsideration) renders the appealed decision, order, or award final and executory and this deprives the appellate body of any jurisdiction to alter the final judgment, more so, to entertain the appeal. 5 So must it be.
Settled is the rule that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. This quality of immutability precludes the modification of the judgment, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. And this postulate holds true whether the modification is made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court in the land. 6 Utmost respect and adherence to this principle must always be maintained by those who exercise the power of adjudication. Any act that violates such principle must immediately be struck down. 7 Indeed, the principle of conclusiveness of prior adjudications is not confined in its operation to the judgments of courts but extends as well to those of all other tribunals exercising adjudicatory powers. 8 CAIHTE
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED in view of the finality of the Decision dated February 13, 2019 and Resolution dated March 26, 2019 of the National Labor Relations Commission Eighth (8th) Division in NLRC-MAC-10-015695-2018 NLRC RAB-XI-07-00748-09 (R-10-17).
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 282-291.
2.Id. at 294-313.
3. Sec. 4. When and where to file the petition. — 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 petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted from the notice of the denial of the motion. (Emphasis supplied)
4.Yaneza v. Hon. Court of Appeals, 593 Phil. 58, 67 (2008).
5.Aguilar v. Court of Appeals, 617 Phil. 543, 555 (2009).
6.Collantes v. Court of Appeals, 546 Phil. 391, 394 (2007).
7.Temic Semiconductors, Inc. Employees Union (TSIEU)-FFW v. Federation of Free Workers (FFW), 577 Phil. 12, 25 (2008).
8.Peña v. GSIS, 533 Phil. 670, 690 (2006).