GR 162445; (October, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 162445. October 20, 2005.
DIONISIO L. BACARRA, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND WILSON LEDESMA, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Dionisio Bacarra was a driver for respondent Wilson Ledesma’s trucking business. On February 18, 1999, he was prevented from entering the company premises, prompting him to file an illegal dismissal complaint. The Labor Arbiter ruled in Bacarra’s favor, finding constructive dismissal. The NLRC, on appeal, modified the decision, holding the dismissal was due to a valid cessation of operations under Article 283 of the Labor Code. It deleted the award of backwages but ordered payment of separation pay.
Bacarra received the NLRC’s denial of his motion for reconsideration on March 3, 2003. The 60-day reglementary period to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 thus expired on May 2, 2003. On April 30, 2003, Bacarra filed a motion for a 30-day extension with the Court of Appeals, citing his counsel’s heavy workload. Without waiting for the CA’s action, he filed the petition itself on May 9, 2003, which was seven days late.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari for being filed out of time.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court set aside the CA’s resolutions and remanded the case. While the 60-day period under Rule 65 is generally inflexible and a lawyer’s heavy workload is not a compelling reason for extension, the Court relaxed the rules in this case. The paramount consideration was substantive justice. The core labor dispute involved the propriety of dismissal on the ground of closure, a matter affecting the employee’s fundamental right to security of tenure.
The Court emphasized that technicalities should not override the opportunity for a full hearing on the merits, especially in labor cases where the constitutional policy is to afford protection to labor. Disposing of the case based solely on a procedural lapse, where the delay was minimal (seven days) and a review of the NLRC’s factual finding of closure was warranted, would result in a miscarriage of justice. The emerging trend is to decide cases on their merits to prevent injustice, making a remand to the CA for reinstatement of the petition the proper course of action.