G.R. No. 223262 . September 11, 2017
DENNIS M. CONCEJERO, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Dennis M. Concejero, former Assistant Vice-President of the Philippine National Bank (PNB), was dismissed for willful breach of trust and confidence after being found to have concealed knowledge of irregular lending activities. His complaint for illegal dismissal was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter, a decision affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in a Resolution received by Concejero on September 23, 2014. Believing he had only 15 days to appeal, his counsel filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) on October 8, 2014, praying for a 15-day extension until October 23, 2014.
The CA, in a Resolution dated November 3, 2014, dismissed the case for failure to file the petition by October 23. However, counsel had realized his error and filed a Manifestation on October 23, explaining that the correct period under Rule 65 is 60 days from notice of the NLRC resolution, making the deadline November 22, 2014. He subsequently filed the Petition for Certiorari on November 24, 2014. The CA, in subsequent resolutions, merely noted the Manifestation, upheld its dismissal, and denied Concejero’s motion for reconsideration, effectively barring his appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing CA-G.R. SP No. 137479 through its Resolutions dated November 3, 2014, June 18, 2015, and March 4, 2016.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural rules are tools to facilitate justice, not hinder it. Under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a petition for certiorari must be filed within 60 days from notice of the judgment or resolution sought to be assailed. Concejero received the NLRC Resolution on September 23, 2014, thus his petition was due on November 22, 2014. His counsel’s initial Motion for Extension was based on a mistaken belief of a 15-day period. Crucially, the petition was filed on November 24, 2014, which was only two days late from the correct deadline and was, in fact, within the period erroneously sought in the extension motion.
The CA’s dismissal on November 3, 2014, was premature as the 60-day period had not yet lapsed. Its subsequent refusal to rectify this error, by merely noting the Manifestation and insisting on the dismissal despite the timely filing, constituted a rigid and unjust application of procedural technicalities. This deprived Concejero of his substantive right to appeal on a mere technicality, which is a denial of due process. The Supreme Court annulled the CA Resolutions and remanded the case for proper proceedings on the merits of the petition.