REY TORRECAMPO, JOVITA V. CALMA, WINTHROP MARK N. BARBA AND LEA TAPNIO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), MATSUSHITA ELECTRONIC PHILS. CORP., SEIICHI …

Torrecampo versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a labor case that reached the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari. The petitioners, Rey Torrecampo, Jovita Calma, Winthrop Mark Barba, and Leo Tapnio, ask the Court to reverse the Court of Appeals, which had dismissed their petition for certiorari as filed out of time. The private respondent is Matsushita Electronic Philippines Corporation. The case matters because it is the Court's cleanest recent statement on two rules every practitioner must know: the sixty-day period to file a petition for certiorari is non-extendible, and a client is bound by the acts and mistakes of his counsel, save only for reckless or gross negligence that deprives the client of due process.

Procedural History

The case began before the labor arbiter and went up to the National Labor Relations Commission. The Commission issued a decision on 5 January 2011, and later a resolution on 7 March 2011 denying the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The petitioners then went to the Court of Appeals by petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court of Appeals, in a resolution dated 12 July 2011, dismissed the petition outright. It found that the petitioners received the assailed Commission resolution on 21 March 2011, giving them until 20 May 2011 to file, but that they filed only on 25 May 2011, five days late. The appellate court also noted that the petitioners had represented their petition as timely filed and had blamed their counsel's housemaid for the wrong date. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied in a resolution dated 6 December 2011. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

The petitioners were employees who lost before the National Labor Relations Commission. A copy of the Commission's resolution denying their motion for reconsideration was received on 21 March 2011. Under the rules, they had sixty days from that notice, or until 20 May 2011, within which to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

They filed only on 25 May 2011, five days after the period expired. In their petition they claimed it was filed within the sixty-day period, and they blamed the housemaid of their counsel on record, who had allegedly told them the resolution was received on 27 March 2011 instead of 21 March 2011. They also blamed their former counsel, whom they said had deserted their case without informing them.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for late filing and refused reconsideration. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners pleaded for a liberal application of the rules so that the case could be decided on its merits rather than on a technicality.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in strictly applying the rules of procedure and dismissing the petition for certiorari as filed out of time.
• Whether or not the petitioners may be excused from the negligence of their counsel and from their own failure to monitor the progress of their case.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:

Section 4. When and where to file petition. The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from the notice of the denial of the motion.

This is the provision that fixes the sixty-day period the petitioners missed, counted from their receipt of the denial of their motion for reconsideration on 21 March 2011.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court denied the petition. It held that under Section 4 of Rule 65, certiorari must be instituted within sixty days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed, and that this period is inextendible, to avoid unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition of their case. Rules of procedure must be faithfully complied with and should not be discarded merely by claiming substantial merit. The Court found it beyond dispute that the petitioners received the Commission resolution on 21 March 2011, so they had until 20 May 2011, and their filing on 25 May 2011 meant the petition was never perfected, rendering the Commission's decision final and executory.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioners were bound by their counsel's negligence. The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts of his counsel, including mistakes in the realm of procedural technique, because counsel holds the implied authority to do all acts necessary or incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit. The recognized exception is when the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, and even then the exception does not apply where the client's own negligence accompanies it. The Court stressed that a litigant has the duty to be vigilant and to monitor the status of his case, for no prudent party leaves the fate of his case entirely in the hands of his lawyer. The Court also reminded that appeal is not a constitutional right but a mere statutory privilege, and parties who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the rules allowing it.

Doctrine

First, the sixty-day period under Section 4 of Rule 65 within which to file a petition for certiorari is mandatory and inextendible, counted from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed, or from notice of the denial of a timely motion for reconsideration. Second, a client is bound by the acts and omissions of his counsel, including mistakes in procedural technique, because counsel's acts within the scope of his authority are regarded as the client's own. The exception arises only where the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process, and it will not apply where the client's own negligence or malice accompanies it, since the client has the duty to be vigilant and to monitor the progress of his case. Third, appeal is not a constitutional right but a mere statutory privilege, so parties must comply strictly with the rules allowing it.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, so the private respondent prevailed and the Commission's decision became final and executory.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the sixty-day period for certiorari is inextendible, and a client is bound by his counsel's mistakes unless counsel's reckless or gross negligence deprived him of due process, unaccompanied by his own negligence. Examiners use this case to test the non-extendibility of the Rule 65 period and the counsel-negligence exception, often pairing it with questions on the client's duty to monitor his own case.