G.R. No. 167637; September 28, 2007
METRO EYE SECURITY, INC., Petitioner, vs. JULIE V. SALSONA, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Julie Salsona was a Security Officer hired by petitioner Metro Eye Security, Inc. On July 11, 2000, he was required to answer a complaint for allegedly working for a competitor. He responded promptly. Subsequently, on July 13, 2000, he received another memorandum concerning allegations of tampering with payroll documents and pilferage of construction materials, to which he also replied. On August 10, 2000, petitioner dismissed Salsona based on loss of trust and confidence, finding him guilty of tampering with payroll documents. Salsona filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Salsona, declaring the dismissal illegal and awarding monetary benefits. The NLRC affirmed this decision with modification. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution dated August 24, 2004. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it for being filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period. The CA found that petitioner received the NLRC Resolution on September 13, 2004, making the petition due on November 12, 2004, but it was filed only on November 16, 2004. The CA also noted an apparent alteration of the receipt date on petitioner’s copy to “September 15, 2004.”

ISSUE

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

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for substantive resolution. The legal logic hinges on the proper reckoning of the reglementary period based on competent proof of receipt. The registry return card, an official court record, indicated receipt on September 15, 2004. This was corroborated by a certification from the Quezon City Post Office, which carries a presumption of regularity. Therefore, the 60-day period to file the petition ended on November 14, 2004, a Sunday. The next business day, November 15, was a special non-working holiday (Feast of Ramadhan), thus extending the deadline to November 16, 2004, the actual filing date. The petition was therefore timely.
The Court emphasized that while procedural rules are important, they must not be applied rigidly to defeat substantive justice, especially when the timeliness of the filing is supported by official records. The CA’s reliance on a potentially doctored photocopy, against the prima facie evidence of the registry return card and post office certification, was erroneous. The case was remanded to the CA for a decision on the merits of the illegal dismissal case.