G.R. No. 267580 , November 11, 2024
CATALINO E. FAJARDO, GEORGE T. PRUDENCIO, NORBERTO L. GUBIAN, JAYSON R. SANGUYO, GAUDIOSO A. BACSAL, JR., IRENEO L. LOYOLA, DANTON B. NUEVO, JR., JOEY M. CALIMLIM, JUANITO M. SOROSORO, JR., AND JHOEMAR G. FAJARDO, PETITIONERS, VS. SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INC. (B-MEG PLANT 1) AND NASARIO SARCEDA, JR., OPERATIONS MANAGER, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners were engaged as laborers by Bataan Mariveles Port Services Corporation between 2005 and 2006, assigned at respondent San Miguel Foods Inc.’s (SMFI) B-MEG Plant 1. In 2008, they were absorbed by Hua Tong Far East Inc. (Hua Tong) but continued their assignments at the same plant. On June 18, 2019, SMFI informed Hua Tong it would not renew their business relationship upon the agreement’s expiration at year-end. Consequently, petitioners were dismissed from employment on December 31, 2019.
On January 19, 2021, petitioners filed an illegal dismissal case against SMFI and Hua Tong before the NLRC, alleging SMFI was their real employer and Hua Tong was a labor-only contractor. The Executive Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint against SMFI for lack of employer-employee relationship but ordered Hua Tong to pay petitioners separation pay and nominal damages. The NLRC affirmed this decision on July 21, 2022, and denied their motion for reconsideration in a Resolution received by petitioners through their counsel, Atty. Geneses R. Abot, on October 11, 2022. This gave them until December 10, 2022, to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
On December 5, 2022, petitioners filed a Motion for Extension of Time, praying for an additional 30 days until January 10, 2023, to file their petition. They explained that Atty. Abot, despite assurances and advance payment, failed to prepare the petition and abandoned them, necessitating the search for new counsel. They filed their Petition for Certiorari via registered mail on January 10, 2023. The CA denied the motion for extension in a Resolution dated January 16, 2023, finding the excuse patently insufficient as petitioners did not exert enough effort to secure new counsel promptly. Their motion for reconsideration was denied on May 26, 2023, prompting the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioners’ petition for certiorari by denying their Motion for Extension of Time to file the said petition.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the Petition for Certiorari before the CA for further proceedings.
While the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is generally non-extendible, the rules do not absolutely prohibit extensions. Recognized exceptions exist, such as to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with the procedural failure, the existence of special or compelling circumstances, a cause not entirely attributable to the party’s fault, and the merits of the case. A motion for extension partakes of an accommodation grounded on sufficient reason and is left to the court’s sound discretion.
In this case, petitioners’ failure to meet the deadline was due to their former counsel’s abandonment after giving assurances and receiving payment. This constitutes a special and compelling circumstance that is not entirely attributable to petitioners’ fault. The negligence of counsel binds the client, but this rule is not absolute. The Court has relaxed procedural rules to serve substantial justice, especially in labor cases where the constitutional policy is to afford protection to labor. The petitioners’ explanation for the delay was reasonable, and there was no showing that the review sought was merely frivolous or dilatory. Therefore, the CA should have granted the motion for extension and resolved the petition on its merits.