ADTEL, INC. and/or CASAS vs. VALDEZ, G.R. No. 189942, August 9, 2017
Ponente: Carpio, J.
Doctrine: Petitions for certiorari must be
filed within 60 days from the notice of judgment or from the order denying a
motion for reconsideration. However, it is not absolute. A motion for extension
was allowed in petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 subject to the
Court's sound discretion and only under exceptional or meritorious
cases.
FACTS: Adtel hired Valdez to work as an accountant. Valdez
was promoted as purchasing and logistics supervisor. Adtel then entered
into a dealership agreement for 12 months with respondent's husband. Mr. Valdez
filed a civil case against Adtel for specific performance and damages for the
execution of the terms of the dealership agreement. He also instituted a
criminal complaint for libel against Adtel's chairman, president, and officers.
Adtel directing respondent to show cause why she should not be terminated for
conflict of interest and/or serious breach of trust and confidence since
respondent had access to vital information that can be used against
Adtel. Respondent was suspended and eventually, terminated. Valdez filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal with LA. She alleged that she did not violate
any company rule or policy; neither was she guilty of fraud, nor willful breach
of trust. That she was illegally dismissed without just cause and was entitled
to separation pay, backwages, and damages.
LA dismissed and found that there existed a conflict
of interest between respondent and Adtel. That respondent was a managerial
employee with a fiduciary duty to protect the interest of Adtel. The civil and
criminal cases initiated by respondent's husband indubitably created a conflict
of interest that was a just cause for her dismissal by Adtel.
NLRC reversed LA. Adtel illegally dismissed
respondent. Adtel failed to substantially prove the existence of an act or
omission personally attributable to the respondent to serve as a just cause to
terminate her employment. CA denied the motion for extension and dismissed
Adtel's petition for certiorari for being filed beyond the
reglementary period.
ISSUE: WON CA committed an error in denying the
petitioners' motion for reconsideration and in dismissing the petition
for certiorari on the sole basis of technicality.
HELD: Petitions for certiorari must
be filed strictly within 60 days from the notice of judgment or from the order
denying a motion for reconsideration. It was non-extendible and the CA no
longer had the authority to grant the motion for extension. However, it is not
absolute. A motion for extension was allowed in petitions for certiorari under
Rule 65 subject to the Court's sound discretion and only under
exceptional or meritorious cases.
Adtel's motion for extension was due to their counsel's
heavy volume of work. However, a heavy workload alone, absent a
compelling or special reason, is not a sufficient justification to allow an
extension. It is ought to be coupled with more compelling reasons such as
illness of counsel or other emergencies that could be substantiated by
affidavits of merit.
CA is affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment