View full case

WATERFRONT CEBU CITY CASINO HOTEL v. ILDEBRANDO LEDESMA

FACTS:

Waterfront Cebu City Casino Hotel, Inc. filed a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in a labor dispute case. The case involves the dismissal of Ildebrando Ledesma, a former employee of Waterfront, who worked as a House Detective in Cebu City. Ledesma was terminated from employment based on complaints filed by Christe Mandal, a supplier of a concessionaire of Waterfront, and Rosanna Lofranco, an applicant for a job at the hotel. Administrative hearings were conducted by Waterfront, which found that Ledesma engaged in inappropriate behavior such as kissing and touching Mandal's breasts inside the hotel's elevator, and showing his penis to Lofranco and requesting her to masturbate him in the conference room. Ledesma subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in his favor, declaring his suspension and dismissal illegal. The LA ordered Waterfront to reinstate Ledesma and pay him backwages and other monetary awards. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA's decision, stating that Ledesma's acts constituted grave misconduct warranting his dismissal. Ledesma filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which granted the petition and reinstated the LA's decision. Waterfront then appealed the CA's decision, contending that the certiorari petition was untimely.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari is extendable.

  2. Whether the computation of the 60-day period should be reckoned from the receipt of the NLRC resolution by the party or by their counsel.

  3. Whether the NLRC Resolution has already become final and unalterable.

  4. Whether there are exceptional circumstances that warrant the relaxation of procedural rules in Ledesma's case.

  5. Whether Ledesma's late filing of his petition for certiorari divested the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

  6. Whether the CA erred in ruling in favor of Ledesma and disregarding the substantial evidence presented against him.

RULING:

  1. The 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari is not extendable. The amendment to Section 4 of Rule 65 by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC removed the provision allowing extensions to file a petition on compelling grounds. The rationale for the amendment is to prevent the use or abuse of the petition for certiorari to delay a case or defeat the ends of justice. Therefore, petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration.

  2. The computation of the 60-day period should be reckoned from the receipt of the NLRC resolution by the counsel of record. Notice to counsel is considered effective notice to the client, while notice to the client and not his counsel is not notice in law. The negligence of counsel in the computation of the period and the reckoning thereof from the party's receipt of the NLRC resolution will not excuse a late filing of the petition. The client is generally bound by the acts, including mistakes, of his counsel in procedural matters. The exception is only when the negligence of counsel is so gross, reckless, and inexcusable that it deprives the client of his day in court.

  3. The NLRC Resolution has already become final and unalterable, rendering it impervious to any attack through a Rule 65 petition for certiorari. No court can exercise jurisdiction to review the resolution.

  4. The relaxation of procedural rules may only be allowed when there are exceptional circumstances to justify it. Ledesma failed to present valid and compelling reasons for his procedural lapse, and therefore, the desired leniency cannot be accorded to him.

  5. Ledesma's late filing of his petition for certiorari and his failure to justify his procedural lapse divested the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

  6. The CA erred in ruling in favor of Ledesma and disregarding the substantial evidence presented against him. The evidence required in labor cases is only substantial evidence, which was adequately established through the positive and credible testimonies of the complainants.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The amendment to the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari removed the provision allowing extensions, aiming to prevent the abuse of the petition for certiorari. (Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals)

  • The 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari is generally not extendable, but the courts have the discretionary authority to grant an extension in exceptional circumstances. (Domdom v. Third & Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan)

  • A party invoking liberality of the courts for an extension must present a reasonable or meritorious explanation for the failure to file the petition within the 60-day period. (Thenamaris Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals)

  • Notice to counsel is considered effective notice to the client, and the negligence of counsel in the computation of the period and reckoning thereof will generally not excuse a late filing of the petition. (Labao v. Flores)

  • A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect.

  • Rules of procedure must be faithfully followed, except when exceptional circumstances exist that justify their relaxation.

  • Procedural rules should be liberally interpreted, but the party invoking liberality must adequately explain their failure to comply with the rules.

  • The burden of proving the existence of exceptionally meritorious reasons warranting the departure from procedural rules lies with the party seeking exemption.

  • The relaxation of procedural rules requires an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for their failure to comply with the rules.

  • The evidence required in labor cases is only substantial evidence, which is defined as such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.