GR 189861; (November, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 189861 November 19, 2014
MICHELIN ASIA PACIFIC APPLICATION SUPPORT CENTER, INC., Petitioner, vs. MARIO J. ORTIZ, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Mario J. Ortiz was employed by petitioner Michelin Asia Pacific Application Support Center, Inc. as Personnel Manager. On November 30, 2006, Michelin ASC informed Ortiz of the termination of his employment effective December 31, 2006 on the ground of redundancy, pursuant to a global initiative to improve efficiency and reduce costs. On December 6, 2006, Ortiz accepted a separation package of ₱2,225,561.66 and executed a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim in favor of Michelin ASC. Nevertheless, on February 27, 2007, Ortiz filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming he was unaware of the redundancy program, was promised a higher separation package, and was forced to accept a lesser amount. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, upholding the validity of the redundancy program and the quitclaim. Ortiz appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC dismissed his appeal via a Resolution dated March 24, 2008, for failure to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping to his Memorandum of Appeal. Ortiz filed a motion for reconsideration, which the NLRC denied in a Resolution dated June 24, 2008, for being filed out of time. Ortiz then filed a second motion for reconsideration, which the NLRC did not give due course in a Resolution dated September 22, 2008, as it is a prohibited pleading. Ortiz filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The CA initially dismissed the petition but, upon reconsideration, annulled the NLRC Resolutions and directed the NLRC to give due course to Ortiz’s appeal, relaxing the procedural rules. Michelin ASC filed the instant petition.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals properly granted Ortiz’s petition for certiorari and annulled the NLRC Resolutions.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted Michelin ASC’s petition, reversed the CA Decision and Resolution, and reinstated the NLRC Resolutions dismissing Ortiz’s appeal. The Court held that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Ortiz’s appeal due to his numerous procedural infractions: (a) failure to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping to his Memorandum of Appeal; (b) filing a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC’s March 24, 2008 Resolution beyond the 10-day reglementary period, rendering said resolution final and executory; and (c) filing a second motion for reconsideration, a prohibited pleading. The filing of the prohibited second motion for reconsideration did not toll the running of the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari; thus, his CA petition was filed out of time. The Court emphasized that a final and executory judgment becomes immutable and unalterable.