G.R. No. 154460 November 22, 2005
Lauro C. Degamo, Petitioner, vs. Avantgarde Shipping Corp., and/or Levy Rabamontan and Sembawang Johnson Mgt. Pte. Ltd., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Lauro C. Degamo was hired as an Oiler in November 1994. He sustained a work-related injury in February 1995, leading to his repatriation on March 4, 1995. After receiving medical treatment, he was declared fit to work on September 11, 1997. On December 24, 1997, he demanded sickness benefits from respondent Avantgarde Shipping Corporation, which denied his claim on January 6, 1998. Degamo subsequently wrote to the foreign principal, Sembawang, in March and May 1998 but received no reply.
Degamo filed a complaint for disability benefits before the Regional Arbitration Board on March 2, 2001. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case on the ground of prescription, a ruling affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Degamo then sought certiorari from the Court of Appeals (CA), filing a motion for a 30-day extension to file the petition. The CA denied the motion, stating that under Rule 65, only a maximum 15-day extension is allowed and that counsel’s heavy workload was not a compelling reason. The CA subsequently denied his motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether Degamo’s cause of action had prescribed; and (2) whether the CA correctly denied his motion for extension of time to file the petition for certiorari.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. On the first issue, the Court held that the applicable prescriptive period is three years from the accrual of the cause of action, as provided in Article 291 of the Labor Code. The cause of action accrued on January 6, 1998, when Avantgarde categorically denied Degamo’s claim. Since the complaint was filed only on March 2, 2001, it was beyond the three-year period and thus barred by prescription. The Court rejected the argument that an extrajudicial demand tolled the period, as Article 1155 of the Civil Code on interruption of prescription is inapplicable to labor money claims governed by the Labor Code.
On the procedural issue, the Court affirmed the CA’s denial of the motion for extension. Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court mandates that a petition for certiorari must be filed within 60 days, with a maximum extension of 15 days. Degamo’s counsel sought a 30-day extension, which exceeded the allowable period. The filing of the petition within the reglementary period is jurisdictional. The Court emphasized that while procedural rules may be relaxed for substantial justice, counsel’s heavy workload does not constitute a compelling reason for liberal application. Consequently, the NLRC decision had become final and executory. The client is bound by the counsel’s negligence, and the petition was properly dismissed.