GR 142803; (November, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 142803 . November 20, 2007.
ARTURO M. ROMERO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, CBM INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES, HADI HAIDER & BROS. CO., and ELPIDIO TAN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Arturo M. Romero was hired by foreign employer Hadi Haider & Bros. Co. (HHBC) and deployed to Saudi Arabia in July 1995. In October 1995, HHBC sent him back to the Philippines to recruit workers. Romero alleged that HHBC failed to remit his full salary from October to December 1995. Instead of receiving the differential, he was served a notice of termination dated February 19, 1996. Romero then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter, impleading HHBC, the local agency CBM International Manpower Services, and its owner Elpidio Tan. The Labor Arbiter and, on appeal, the NLRC dismissed the complaint, finding that Romero failed to establish that CBM processed his papers or was responsible for his deployment, thus negating an employer-employee relationship with the local agency.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Romero’s petition for certiorari for being filed out of time. Subsidiary issues involve the factual determinations of illegal dismissal and CBM’s liability.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the petition on procedural grounds. The appellate court applied the 60-day reglementary period under the then-effective Circular No. 39-98, counting from Romero’s receipt of the NLRC resolution, and found the petition filed 62 days later, thus time-barred. The Supreme Court clarified that Administrative Matter No. 00-2-03-SC, a curative statute enacted to remedy procedural defects arising from the strict application of Circular No. 39-98, should be applied retroactively. This curative resolution validated petitions that would otherwise be considered late under the previous rule.
Applying this retroactive principle, Romero’s petition before the Court of Appeals was deemed timely filed. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate court’s resolutions. On the substantive issues, the Court held that the questions of whether HHBC illegally dismissed Romero and whether CBM was responsible for his recruitment and deployment are factual in nature, requiring evidentiary determination best performed by the lower tribunals. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for proper adjudication on the merits of Romero’s illegal dismissal complaint.