G.R. No. 172760-61; October 15, 2007
Karen and Kristy Fishing Industry and Sps. Heliodoro Tuvilla and Aquilina Tuvilla, Petitioners, vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Fifth Division and National Labor Relations Commission, Third Division, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, the proprietors of Karen & Kristy Fishing Industry, were sued by their fishermen-crew for illegal dismissal and money claims. The Labor Arbiter awarded monetary claims but dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint. Both parties appealed to the NLRC, which modified the computation of awards. Both then filed separate petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which were consolidated. During pendency, petitioner Heliodoro Tuvilla died. The CA subsequently rendered a Decision on December 29, 2005, dismissing the petition of the Tuvillas and granting that of the employees, thereby reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
A copy of the CA Decision was sent to petitioners’ counsel of record, Atty. Eugenio Dela Cruz, but was returned as he had moved. The CA then sent a copy to the spouses Tuvilla’s address, which was received on January 27, 2006. On February 6, 2006, petitioner Aquilina Tuvilla filed a motion seeking time to locate her counsel or secure a new one and for an extension to file a motion for reconsideration, citing difficulties following her husband’s death. She subsequently filed a motion for substitution of counsel and later a motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ motions and in ruling that their motion for reconsideration was filed out of time, thereby rendering the Decision final and executory.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration of a CA decision is 15 days from notice. Service of the decision on the counsel of record is the prescribed mode of service. However, when service on counsel fails, the court may effect service on the party. Here, the CA properly served the decision on petitioners themselves after the notice to their counsel was returned. Their receipt on January 27, 2006, started the 15-day period. The motion for reconsideration was filed only on February 21, 2006, clearly beyond the period. A motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration of a CA decision is prohibited under the Rules of Court. The negligence of their former counsel binds the client. The Court emphasized that while procedural rules may be relaxed for compelling reasons, petitioners failed to show any justifying circumstance, such as fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, warranting liberality. The CA’s strict application of procedural rules to avoid delay and maintain order in judicial proceedings was correct. On the merits, a petition for certiorari only corrects errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The CA committed no grave abuse in its substantive ruling, as it correctly found the NLRC’s order for recomputation lacked basis due to petitioners’ failure to prove alleged payments to workers. The petition was dismissed.