GR 197556; (March, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 197556 March 25, 2015
WATERFRONT CEBU CITY CASINO HOTEL, INC. and MARCO PROTACIO, Petitioners, vs. ILDEBRANDO LEDESMA, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Ildebrando Ledesma was employed as a House Detective at petitioner Waterfront Cebu City Casino Hotel, Inc. He was dismissed from employment based on complaints filed by Christe Mandal, a supplier’s representative, and Rosanna Lofranco, a job applicant. Waterfront found that Ledesma kissed and mashed Mandal’s breasts inside a hotel elevator and exhibited his penis and asked Lofranco to masturbate him in a hotel conference room. Ledesma filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with backwages. The NLRC reversed this, holding the dismissal valid due to grave misconduct. Ledesma’s counsel received the NLRC Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration on March 15, 2010. Ledesma himself received his copy on March 24, 2010. On May 17, 2010, his counsel filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals. Waterfront moved to dismiss the petition for being filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period. Ledesma, through new counsel, filed an amended petition, arguing the period should be counted from his personal receipt on March 24, making the filing timely. The CA granted leave, admitted the amended petition, and reversed the NLRC, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision. Waterfront filed the present petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for certiorari filed by Ledesma with the Court of Appeals was timely filed within the 60-day reglementary period.
RULING
No, the petition for certiorari was filed beyond the 60-day period. The Supreme Court granted Waterfront’s petition, reversing the CA. The Court held that the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is mandatory and jurisdictional. The period is counted from the counsel of record’s receipt of the assailed order, which was March 15, 2010. Excluding the first day and including the last, the final day to file was May 14, 2010. The petition filed on May 17, 2010, was therefore three days late. The Court rejected Ledesma’s argument that the period should be counted from his personal receipt, as notice to counsel is notice to the client. The CA’s admission of the amended petition and relaxation of procedural rules were unjustified, as Ledesma failed to present a reasonable or meritorious explanation for the late filing. His counsel’s mere miscalculation of the deadline, claiming May 15 was the 60th day, constituted simple negligence, not a compelling reason for liberality. Consequently, the CA should have dismissed the petition for certiorari outright. The NLRC’s decision finding the dismissal valid was reinstated.