GR 182262; (April, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 182262 ; April 13, 2011
ROMULO B. DELA ROSA, Petitioner, vs. MICHAELMAR PHILIPPINES, INC., substituted by OSG SHIPMANAGEMENT MANILA, INC., and/or MICHAELMAR SHIPPING SERVICES, INC., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Romulo B. dela Rosa was hired by respondent Michaelmar Philippines, Inc. as a 3rd Engineer for a nine-month contract on board the vessel MT “Goldmar,” starting February 15, 2003. He was discharged and repatriated on April 14, 2003, for alleged poor performance. Dela Rosa filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming termination without just cause and due process. Respondents countered that his termination was valid due to unsatisfactory work performance, refusal to receive a warning letter on March 16, 2003, and stopping work on April 9, 2003. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, a decision affirmed by the NLRC. The Court of Appeals initially reversed the NLRC, declaring the dismissal illegal, but upon respondents’ motion for reconsideration, issued an Amended Decision dismissing Dela Rosa’s petition as moot and academic, ruling that the NLRC’s November 24, 2005 Resolution had become final and executory.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of mootness, based on the finality of the NLRC Resolution.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the CA erred in declaring the NLRC Resolution final and executory, as Dela Rosa’s petition for certiorari was timely filed. He received the NLRC’s denial of his motion for reconsideration on December 8, 2005, and had until February 6, 2006 (a Sunday) to file; he filed on the next working day, February 7, 2006, within the 60-day reglementary period under Rule 65. On the merits, the Court found that respondents failed to substantiate the alleged just causes for termination (neglect of duty and abandonment) with clear and convincing evidence. The warning letter and logbook entries were deemed insufficient and self-serving. Respondents also failed to comply with the twin requirements of notice and hearing. Consequently, Dela Rosa was illegally dismissed and is entitled to his salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract.