G.R. No. 165359 ; July 14, 2008
HONDA CARS MAKATI, INC., Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MICHAEL P. BASSI, Respondents.

FACTS

Michael P. Bassi was employed by Honda Cars Makati, Inc. as a car body repair leadman, a position of trust granting him access to tools and spare parts in the restricted Body and Paint Shop. On June 2, 2001, a supervisor reported seeing Bassi with a scrap buyer, Robert Maglalang, in the restricted crib room. Bassi was observed hauling a box from the room and handing it to Maglalang, who then attempted to have it loaded into a van without a proper gate pass. An investigation concluded Bassi played a significant role in a plan to pull out company items, which were not scrap but reusable parts, for unauthorized removal. A subsequent locker inspection also yielded various tools and spare parts. Bassi was dismissed for willful breach of trust and confidence.
Bassi filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, ordering reinstatement with backwages, finding the evidence insufficient to prove loss of trust. The NLRC reversed, upholding the dismissal. Bassi filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The CA initially dismissed it for being filed one day late but later reinstated it, finding the delay excusable. Honda Cars filed the present Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the CA’s reinstatement of Bassi’s petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in reinstating Bassi’s petition for certiorari after initially dismissing it for being filed one day late.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted Honda’s petition, reversed the CA Resolutions, and remanded the case. The Court held that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in excusing the one-day delay in filing. Procedural rules, such as the reglementary period for filing appeals or petitions, are designed to ensure the orderly administration of justice. While exceptions exist, they must be based on compelling reasons. The CA’s reliance on the “fresh period rule” from the Neypes doctrine was misplaced, as that rule applies to appeals from trial court judgments, not to special civil actions like certiorari under Rule 65. For Rule 65 petitions, the 60-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Bassi’s excuse of “heavy workload” and “inadvertence” was deemed a flimsy and invalid justification for non-compliance. The CA’s act of relaxing the rules without a compelling, meritorious reason constituted a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, equivalent to grave abuse of discretion. The proper course was to deny the petition for being filed out of time. The substantive merits of the illegal dismissal case were not addressed, as the procedural lapse was dispositive. The case was remanded to the CA for proper disposition consistent with this ruling.