G.R. No. 146212 ; September 5, 2007
FRED N. BELLO, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, CORPUZ MOYA SECURITY AND SERVICES, INC. and/or REMEDIOS MOYA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Fred N. Bello was employed as Operations Manager by respondent Corpuz Moya Security and Services, Inc. (CMSSI). On August 28, 1997, CMSSI informed Bello of his dismissal effective August 31, 1997, citing the termination of a client contract and the need for strict retrenchment due to financial losses. Bello filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, finding the dismissal illegal due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and lack of substantial evidence for retrenchment. The NLRC reversed this decision, finding sufficient basis for retrenchment and also noting Bello’s alleged frequent absences.
Bello’s counsel received a copy of the NLRC Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration on November 4, 1999. Bello himself, however, only learned of the denial on April 18, 2000, after his copy was returned unserved. On June 2, 2000, Bello filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed the petition for being filed out of time, counting the 60-day reglementary period from counsel’s receipt on November 4, 1999. The CA denied his motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari for being filed out of time.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period. Bello argued that in labor cases, the period to appeal should be counted from the receipt of the decision by either the counsel or the party, whichever comes later, citing the rule on separate service. The Court, however, clarified that this rule on separate service applies to the original decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC to ensure the party is informed of appeal periods. It does not apply to resolutions on motions for reconsideration.
For resolutions denying a motion for reconsideration, notice to counsel is binding upon the client. The period to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is interrupted by the filing of a motion for reconsideration. Upon denial of that motion, the remaining period, but not less than five days, continues to run from notice of such denial. Since Bello’s counsel received the NLRC’s denial on November 4, 1999, the period resumed from that date. The petition filed on June 2, 2000, was 163 days late. The failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period is jurisdictional, not a mere technicality, as it deprives the appellate court of authority to entertain the appeal and vests rights in the winning party upon the finality of the decision. The Court found no compelling reason to relax the procedural rules in this instance.