LINCOLN GERARD, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITERS JESUS ROMEO D. DUQUE AND QUINTIN C. MENDOZA, ACTING DEPUTY SHERIFF EUGENIO BARTOLOME, J…

This petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
injunction and/or restraining order seeks to reverse the decision dated October
10, 1987 of respondent Labor Arbiter Jesus Romeo D. Duque
declaring illegal the dismissal of respondent employee, Alfonso Balignasay, and ordering his reinstatement with backwages, as well as, the resolutions dated August 24,
1988 and September 26, 1988 of the National Labor Relations Commission
dismissing the petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction and denying
the motion for reconsideration.

Alfonso Balignasay was employed as a
finisher-varnisher on March 17, 1981 in the
petitioner’s furniture factory.  At the
time of his dismissal on September 28, 1985, he was a sander receiving a daily
wage of P37.00 plus an allowance of P17.00.

On October 8, 1985, Balignasay filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal (NLRC Case No. 3299-85).  The case was submitted for decision based on
the position papers of the parties.  On
October 10, 1987, Labor Arbiter Jesus Romeo Duque
rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

“WHEREFORE, decision is hereby rendered declaring the
respondent guilty of illegally suspending and dismissing the complainant and
ordering it to reinstate complainant to his former position as sander without
loss of seniority rights and other privileges as well as, pay complainant:

“a)          full backwages from September
29, 1985 up to his actual reinstatement;

“b)          the wages he
lost for the period covering September
14 to 28, 1985 in the amount of P810.00; and

“c)          attorney’s
fees in the amount of ten (10%) percent of the total monetary award
herein.” (p. 37-A, Rollo. )

A copy of the decision was received by petitioner’s counsel on
December 3, 1987.

On July 22, 1988,
the private respondent filed a motion for execution, a copy of which was
received by the petitioner on July 26,
1988.  During the hearing on
the motion for execution on August 3,
1988, petitioner, through counsel, was shown the computation of backwages amounting to P49,740.00
for September 29, 1985 up
to July 29, 1988, lost
wages of P810.00 for September 14,
1985 up to September 28,
1986, and attorney’s fees of P5,055.00 equivalent to 10% of the
monetary awards.

On August 1, 1988, petitioner, through its new counsel (Ambrosio Padilia, Mempin and Keyes Law Office), filed an unverified petition
for relief from judgment in the NLRC, alleging that: (1) it was denied due
process because it was not furnished a copy of the Labor Arbiter’s decision,
and that its former counsel (Chuanico & Oebanda Law Office) failed to inform it about the decision;
and (2) Balignasay was dismissed in accordance with
the Labor Code and that the grant of backwages and
attorney’s fees to him was excessive and illegal as the grant of allowances
should not exceed three (3) months. 
Private respondent opposed the petition for relief on the grounds that
it was not verified and not accompanied by an affidavit of merits.  The petitioner subsequently submitted the
verification of its petition for relief but the petition was not acted upon by
the Labor Arbiter.

On August 15, 1988, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with a prayer for preliminary
injunction in the NLRC, raising substantially the same issues as its petition
for relief from judgment.

On August 23, 1988, the NLRC, in an En Banc Resolution, dismissed
the petition for certiorari.  The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
was also denied.

On October 3, 1988, after the first alias writ of execution was
returned unsatisfied, Balignasay asked for a second
alias writ and a break-open-and-military-assistance order which the Labor
Arbiter granted.  Petitioner has come to
this court alleging grave abuse of discretion by the public respondent.

The principal issues in this case are whether the respondent
employee was illegally dismissed and whether petitioner was denied due process.

The petitioner denies that Balignasay
was dismissed.  It alleges that Balignasay absented himself, abandoned his job, and refused
to work.

However, contrary to petitioner’s claim that private respondent
abandoned his job, the records of the case show that Balignasay
was suspended by petitioner on September 14, 1985 and no reason was given
why.  When he tried to report for work on
September 28, 1985, he was advised that he had been terminated.  There had been no hearing or investigation of
the cause of his dismissal.  He was
advised of his suspension and, subsequently, of his termination, without
informing him of the cause thereof. 
Having been illegally dismissed, he is entitled to the payment of his backwages from the time his salary was withheld on
September 29, 1985 up to July 29, 1988. 
The award of P5,055 as attorney’s fees is in
accordance with Article 111 of the Labor Code which provides that in case of
unlawful withholding of wages, the culpable party may be assessed attorney’s
fees equivalent to 10% of the amount of wages recovered.

Equally without merit is the petitioner’s contention that it was
denied due process of law because the decision dated. October 10, 1987 was
served upon its former counsel who did not inform it about the adverse
decision.

It has been a settled rule that when a party appears by counsel
in an action in court or administrative body, all notices required to be given
must be served to the counsel and not to the client, for the rule is that
notice to the counsel is notice to the client (Antonio vs. CA, 153 SCRA
592).  Records show that petitioner’s
former counsel, Chuanico and Oebanda
Law offices did not withdraw its appearance, hence,
service of a copy of the decision on the law firm was valid.

“An attorney seeking to withdraw must make an application to
the court, for the relation does not terminate formally until there is a withdrawal
of record; at least so far as the opposite party is concerned, the relation
otherwise continues until the end of the litigation.” (Visitacion
vs. Manit, 27 SCRA 523.)

Considering that aside from its position paper, petitioner
submitted an unverified petition for relief dated August 1, 1988, a petition
for certiorari with preliminary injunction dated August 15, 1988, and a motion
for reconsideration dated September 13, 1988, the petitioner may not complain
of lack of due process.  Its failure to
seasonably move for reconsideration, or appeal the decision, because of the
negligence of its counsel does not constitute a denial of due process.  For the rule is that a client is bound by the
negligence or failings of his counsel (Republic vs. Arro,
150 SCRA 626; Ayllon vs. Sevilla,
156 SCRA 257).

WHEREFORE, finding no
grave abuse of discretion in the decision of the NLRC in NLRC Case No. 3299-85,
the same is hereby affirmed except the award of backwages
which shall be limited to a period of three (3) years.  The petition for certiorari is dismissed for
lack of merit, with costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.