G.R. No. 182718 ; September 26, 2008
JULIO B. PURCON, JR., Petitioner, vs. MRM PHILIPPINES, INC. and MIGUEL L. RIVERA/MARITIME RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Julio B. Purcon, Jr. was hired by respondent MRM Philippines, Inc. as a seafarer on January 28, 2002, with a three-month contract later extended for another three months. In June 2002, he experienced severe pain and was diagnosed with a hernia in France, leading to his repatriation. Upon arrival, the company-designated physician examined him and declared him fit to resume work on July 24, 2002. When petitioner sought re-employment, he was informed no vacancy was available. Subsequently, on September 17, 2003, he consulted a private physician who diagnosed him with epididymitis and other conditions, assessing a Grade XIV impediment.
Petitioner filed a complaint before the NLRC Arbitration Branch seeking reimbursement of medical expenses, sickness allowance, permanent disability benefits, and damages. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, ruling that petitioner was fit to work as certified by the company physician and that his non-rehire was due to lack of vacancy, not disability. The NLRC affirmed this decision, which became final and executory on January 27, 2006. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), but it was dismissed due to formal infirmities. His motion for reconsideration was denied, and the CA resolution became final on September 29, 2006.
On May 9, 2007, petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 45. In a Resolution dated July 16, 2007, the Supreme Court denied the petition for being filed out of time, for failure to pay docket fees on time, and for defective verification. An Entry of Judgment was issued on October 9, 2007. Subsequently, on May 6, 2008, petitioner filed the instant petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, attributing the procedural lapses to the gross negligence and inefficiency of his collaborating counsel.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is a proper remedy to set aside the Supreme Court’s July 16, 2007 Resolution and the October 9, 2007 Entry of Judgment.

RULING

No, the petition for relief from judgment is not a proper remedy. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a petition for relief under Rule 38 is an equitable remedy available only in exceptional cases where a judgment, final order, or proceeding was taken against a party through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, and when no other adequate remedy is available. The Court emphasized that such a petition is not a substitute for a lost appeal, especially when the loss resulted from a party’s or counsel’s negligence.
The Court explained that the petition for relief is governed by Rule 38, which applies to judgments or final orders of a court in which a petition for relief may be filed. However, the Supreme Court is not a “court” within the contemplation of Rule 38 for this purpose, as the Rules distinguish between the Supreme Court and lower courts. The proper remedy from a final Supreme Court resolution is a timely motion for reconsideration, not a petition for relief. Since petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the July 16, 2007 Resolution, he cannot now avail of a petition for relief to revive a lost remedy.
Moreover, the Court ruled that the negligence of petitioner’s counsel was not excusable. Counsel’s failure to comply with procedural rules—such as filing the petition beyond the reglementary period, non-payment of docket fees, and submission of defective pleadings—constitutes gross negligence, which binds the client. The Court reiterated that relief is not granted when the loss of a remedy is due to a party’s own negligence or a mistaken mode of procedure. Public policy demands finality of judgments, and allowing the petition would unduly delay the administration of justice. Thus, the petition for relief was dismissed.