G.R. No. L-52178 September 28, 1982
DEMETRIO ERNESTO, et al., petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SAN CARLOS MILLING CO., INC., et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, laborers of respondent planters, filed a complaint seeking payment of their 60% share of an alleged contractual increase in the planters’ proceeds from sugarcane milled at respondent San Carlos Milling Co., Inc. during crop years 1958-59 to 1967-68 and thereafter. They claimed entitlement under Section 9 of the Sugar Act of 1952 ( Republic Act No. 809 ). The Court of Agrarian Relations dismissed their complaint, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal.
Respondents raised a preliminary procedural obstacle, arguing the Court of Appeals’ decision had become final and executory. They contended that Presidential Decree No. 946, governing agrarian cases, prohibits motions for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals and allows only a non-extendible 30-day period to appeal to the Supreme Court. Petitioners’ counsel had filed motions for extension to seek reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals granted—an action technically impermissible under the decree.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court may take cognizance of the petition despite the alleged procedural technicality concerning the finality of the Court of Appeals’ decision.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court properly assumed jurisdiction. While respondents’ technical argument based on P.D. No. 946 is plausible, the Court emphasized that substantive justice and the constitutional mandate to protect labor outweigh strict procedural adherence under the peculiar circumstances. The procedural lapse was committed by petitioners’ counsel, not by the laborers themselves. Moreover, the Court of Appeals compounded the error by favorably acting on the improper motions and later issuing a resolution indicating the petitioners could still appeal to the Supreme Court. The laborers, relying on these judicial actions, were lulled into believing their case remained viable.
The Court held that it would be a grave injustice to deny a hearing on a manifestly meritorious claim of labor due to a counsel’s oversight and a court’s own error concerning a technical procedural rule. Previous resolutions of the Court had already given due course to the petition and denied respondents’ motions to dismiss, thereby settling the jurisdictional issue. Consequently, the Court proceeded to the merits.
On the merits, the Court found that Republic Act No. 809 applied. It held that for determining whether a majority of planters had written milling contracts with the central (a condition for the law’s application), all planters who delivered sugarcane to the respondent central must be counted. The record showed that on this basis, planters with written contracts were in the minority. Therefore, the sharing provisions of Section 1 of R.A. No. 809 governed. The respondent central was liable to pay the respondent planters the difference in shares as prescribed by law, and the planters, in turn, were ordered to pay 60% of that difference to their laborers, the petitioners, under the supervision of the Minister of Labor.