GR 228572; (January, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 228572, January 27, 2020
MICHAEL ADRIANO CALLEON, PETITIONER, VS. HZSC REALTY CORPORATION, JOHN LEANLON P. RAYMUNDO, EMERSON D. ANGELES, LLOYD T. ISON, SHERWIN M. ODOÑO, LEMUEL D. VENZON, AND RONALD F. CALING, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
The case originated from complaints for illegal (constructive) dismissal and monetary claims filed by individual respondents against HZSC Realty Corporation and its President, petitioner Michael Adriano Calleon. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the individual respondents, a decision affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Resolution dated September 23, 2016, the CA dismissed the petition for failure to comply with procedural requirements. Petitioner received a personal notice of this Resolution on October 5, 2016. His counsel, Atty. Ariel C. Santos, received a copy sent by registered mail on October 11, 2016. On October 26, 2016, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with an amended petition. The CA, in a Resolution dated November 28, 2016, denied the motion for reconsideration for having been belatedly filed, apparently reckoning the period from petitioner’s personal receipt on October 5. Petitioner assailed this denial before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the motion for reconsideration for having been belatedly filed.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The petition was granted. The Supreme Court set aside the CA’s November 28, 2016 Resolution and remanded the case to the CA to resolve the motion for reconsideration on the merits.
The Supreme Court ruled that when a party is represented by counsel, service of judgments, final orders, or resolutions must be made upon said counsel, unless the court orders service upon the party personally. Notice to the client is not considered notice in law. The records showed that petitioner’s counsel received the CA’s September 23, 2016 Resolution via registered mail on October 11, 2016. Consequently, the 15-day period to file a motion for reconsideration began from October 11, making the motion filed on October 26, 2016, timely. The CA therefore erred in denying it as belated. The case was remanded to the CA to resolve the motion for reconsideration, together with the amended petition intended to cure the procedural defects. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Supreme Court enjoining the NLRC from implementing its decisions remained in force.