GR 199617; (September, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 199617, September 02, 2015
REY TORRECAMPO, JOVITA V. CALMA, WINTHROP MARK N. BARBA AND LEA TAPNIO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), MATSUSHITA ELECTRONIC PHILS. CORP., SEIICHI FUKAMI, IROKAZU UMEDA, BARTOLOME SARANGGAYA, JAIME TIONGSON AND SINICHI JOSONE, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Decision dated January 5, 2011 and its Resolution dated March 7, 2011. The CA dismissed the petition for having been filed out of time. The CA found that petitioners received a copy of the NLRC Resolution on March 21, 2011, giving them until May 20, 2011 to file the petition under the 60-day reglementary period. However, the petition was filed only on May 25, 2011, or five days late. The CA also noted that petitioners attempted to mislead the court by stating the petition was filed within the reglementary period and blaming their counsel’s housemaid for erroneously informing them of a March 27, 2011 receipt date. The CA denied their Motion for Reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in strictly applying the rules of procedure by dismissing the Petition for Certiorari for being filed out of time.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Resolutions. The 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is inextendible. Petitioners’ receipt of the NLRC Resolution on March 21, 2011 made the filing deadline May 20, 2011. Filing on May 25, 2011 rendered the NLRC decision final and executory. The general rule is that a client is bound by the counsel’s acts, including mistakes in procedural technique. The exception for counsel’s gross negligence does not apply here because petitioners were not vigilant in monitoring their case; a client has a duty to keep updated on the case status. Appeal is a statutory privilege, and parties must comply with the rules. The CA correctly dismissed the petition for non-perfection of the appeal within the reglementary period.