GR 170001; (April, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170001 ; April 4, 2007
Arlyn D. Bago, Petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Standard Insurance Co. Inc. and/or Ernesto Echaus, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Arlyn Bago, an encoder, was among several employees of Standard Insurance Company’s Tuguegarao Branch charged by their branch head with manipulating commissions and spreading malicious rumors about her. An internal audit confirmed financial irregularities, noting a connivance among staff, including Bago, who signed the auditors’ report. While initially blaming others, Bago and co-employees later submitted a written apology, stating, “Lubos po kaming nagsisisi,” and personally sought forgiveness from the branch head. Regarding the rumor-mongering charge, they were directed to explain but initially did not, believing the matter was settled after obtaining forgiveness.
The company terminated Bago for serious misconduct and loss of trust. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, ordering reinstatement with backwages. The NLRC reversed this decision, finding the dismissal valid. Bago’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and the NLRC resolution attained finality. She then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed for being filed out of time. She elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Bago’s petition for certiorari for being filed beyond the reglementary period, considering the finality of the NLRC’s decision.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrine of finality of judgments. The NLRC’s resolution denying Bago’s motion for reconsideration became final and executory ten calendar days after she received it. Records show she received it on December 3, 2004, making the decision final by December 13, 2004. She filed her petition with the Court of Appeals only on January 10, 2005, which was beyond the 60-day period allowed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
The Court emphasized that the reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari is mandatory and jurisdictional. Bago’s failure to file on time rendered the NLRC decision immutable. The fact that the NLRC decision had attained finality meant the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain the late petition. The Court rejected Bago’s argument that the period should be counted from her counsel’s receipt, as the rules are clear that service on counsel is service on the party. No compelling reason justified relaxing the procedural rules. Consequently, the dismissal of her petition by the Court of Appeals for being time-barred was correct.