GR 147955; (October, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 147955 ; October 25, 2004
DIONISIO B. AZUCENA, petitioner, vs. FOREIGN MANPOWER SERVICES, K.S. KASMITO and FORTUNE LIFE & GENERAL ASSURANCE CO., INC., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Dionisio B. Azucena was hired as Chief Engineer for a Norwegian vessel. His employment was terminated prematurely, leading him to file a complaint for non-payment of allotment before the POEA. The POEA ruled in his favor, and this decision was affirmed with modification by the NLRC, awarding him two months’ salary as cash allotment. This NLRC decision became final and executory.
Subsequently, Azucena filed a separate complaint before the NLRC for moral and exemplary damages, alleging that the respondents’ actions caused him blacklisting in the shipping industry and public humiliation when a bank, allegedly upon respondents’ instruction, refused to allow the withdrawal of his allotment. The Labor Arbiter initially awarded damages, but the NLRC reversed this and dismissed the complaint. Azucena filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it for failure to sufficiently allege grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.
Azucena’s counsel received the CA Decision on November 27, 2000. The reglementary period to file a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review to the Supreme Court expired on December 12, 2000. No such pleading was filed. Instead, counsel filed a petition for relief from judgment with the CA on January 18, 2001, claiming negligence for missing the deadline.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly denied the petition for relief from judgment.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy available only when a judgment has become final and executory due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. The negligence invoked by Azucena’s counsel—failing to file the appropriate motion or petition within the reglementary period—does not constitute excusable negligence. The mistake was a result of the lawyer’s oversight and lack of diligence, not an excusable circumstance like fraud or accident.
The right to due process, which Azucena claimed was violated, pertains to the opportunity to be heard. The records show he was afforded this opportunity throughout the proceedings. The finality of the CA Decision must be respected. Public policy demands an end to litigation. To grant relief based on counsel’s simple negligence would set a harmful precedent, encouraging endless litigation by allowing new counsel to continually allege prior counsel’s incompetence. The negligence of counsel binds the client, and the petition was properly dismissed.