7/25/2019 Technical Rules Reyes v NLRC 578 SCRA 322

1/2

Technical RulesReyes vs. NLRCG.R. No. 180551

Facts:

Before this Court is a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court led

by petitioner Erwin ! Reyes see"in# to reverse and set aside the Resolutions the Court ofAppeals! the appellate court dis$issed petitioners %etition for Certiorari therein for failure to #ive ane&planation why copy of the said %etition was not personally served upon the counsel of therespondents!

'he %etitioner le a Co$plaint for ille#al dis$issal with clai$s for $oral and e&e$plary da$a#es andattorneys fees a#ainst the respondents Coca Cola Bottlers %hilippines (CCB%) and Rotaida 'a#uibao('a#uibao) before the *abor Arbiter on +, -une .//,! 0n his Co$plaint1 petitioner alle#ed that he wasrst e$ployed by respondent CCB%1 throu#h 0nterserve 2anpower A#ency (0nterserve)1 as a *ead$an!%etitioner was initially assi#ned to the 2endiola Sales 34ce of respondent CCB%! %etitionerse$ploy$ent contract was renewed every ve $onths and he was assi#ned a dierent tas" everyti$e! Such an arran#e$ent continued until petitioner was directly hired by respondent CCB% as aRoute Sales$an! E&actly one year fro$ the ti$e of petitioners e$ploy$ent as a Route Sales$an1respondent CCB%1 thru 'a#uibao1 ter$inated his services where he already acuired the status of are#ular e$ployee1 petitioner asserted that his dis$issal fro$ e$ploy$ent without the benet of due

process was unlawful! opposin# the Co$plaint1 respondent CCB% refuted petitioners alle#ation that hewas a re#ular e$ployee! %etitioners e$ploy$ent was for a &ed period of three $onths1 which wassubseuently e&tended with petitioners consent! the *abor Arbiter pro$ul#ated his 7ecision1 favorin#petitioner1 since there was insu4cient evidence to sustain the aver$ent of respondents CCB% and'a#uibao that petitioners e$ploy$ent was for a &ed period! the respondents reinstated the petitionerto his for$er position!owever1 respondents CCB% and 'a#uibao1 Appealed before the 8*RC but lateron dis$issed! 8*RC reduced the a$ount of bac"wa#es awarded to petitioner and deleted the order forhis reinstate$ent! All the parties $oved for the reconsideration of the fore#oin# 8*RC 7ecision butdenied! 'he petitioner elevated his case before the Court of Appeals by lin# a %etition for Certiorari heaverred in his %etition that the 8*RC abused its discretion in i#norin# the established facts and le#alprinciples when it $odied the award for his bac"wa#es and deleted the order for his reinstate$ent!

'he Court of Appeals dis$issed petitioners %etition for Certiorarifor his failure to #ive anye&planation why a copy of the said %etition was not personally served upon the counsel of the adverse

parties! Since petitioner failed to ti$ely le a 2otion for Reconsideration1 the Resolution dated +/8ove$ber .//6 of the Court of Appeals beca$e nal and e&ecutory1 and an Entry of -ud#$ent was$ade!

3n +9 -uly .//1 petitioners new counsel led an Entry of Appearance with an ;r#ent 2otion

for Reconsideration! %etitioner1 throu#h his new counsel1 sou#ht for the liberality of the Court ofAppeals1 faultin# his for$er counsel for the procedural defects of his %etition and for his failure toseasonably see" reconsideration of the +/ 8ove$ber .//6 Resolution of the appellate court! Also1 thisti$e1 it would appear that petitioner provided the e&planation reuired by Section ++1 Rule +< of theRevised Rules of Court! 0n a Resolution dated 9 8ove$ber .//1 the Court of Appeals deniedpetitioners ;r#ent 2otion for Reconsideration for bein# led out of ti$e!

ence1 petitioner via the instant Special Civil Action for Certiorari assails the Resolutions of the

Court of Appeals to the Supre$e Court!

0ssue

=hether or not the for petitioners failure to co$ply with Section ++1 Rule +< of the Revised Rules ofCourt1 should e&pun#ed his case fro$ the records even thou#h there is a ne#li#ence on the part of hisfor$er counsel>

eld

0t is true that for petitioners failure to co$ply with Section ++1 Rule +< of the Revised Rules of Court1his petition should be e&pun#ed fro$ the records! 8evertheless1 the Rules of Court itself calls for its

7/25/2019 Technical Rules Reyes v NLRC 578 SCRA 322

2/2

liberal construction1 with the view of pro$otin# their ob?ective of securin# a ?ust1 speedy andine&pensive disposition of every action and proceedin#! 'he Court is fully aware that procedural rulesare not to be belittled or si$ply disre#arded for these prescribed procedures insure an orderly andspeedy ad$inistration of ?ustice! owever1 it is eually true that liti#ation is not $erely a #a$e oftechnicalities! *aw and ?urisprudence #rant to courts the prero#ative to rela& co$pliance withprocedural rules of even the $ost $andatory character1 $indful of the duty to reconcile both the needto put an end to liti#ation speedily and the parties ri#ht to an opportunity to be heard

0n nu$erous cases1@+.the Court has allowed liberal construction of Section ++1 Rule +< of theRevised Rules of Court when doin# so would be in the service of the de$ands of substantial ?ustice andin the e&ercise of the euity ?urisdiction of this Court! 0n one such case1 Fulgencio v. National LaborRelations Commission,[13]this Court provided the followin# ?ustication for its noninsistence on awritten e&planation as reuired by Section ++1 Rule +< of the Revised Rules of Court:

The rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the

attainment of ustice. They !ere conceived and promulgated to e"ectivelyaid the court in the dispensation of ustice.Courts are not slaves to or ro#otsof technical rules1 shorn of udicial discretion! 0n renderin# ?ustice1 courts havealways been1 as they ou#ht to be1 conscientiously #uided by the nor$ that on thebalance1 technicalities ta"e a bac"seat a#ainst substantive ri#hts1 and not the otherway around! 'hus1 if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather thanpro$ote ?ustice1 it is always within our power to suspend the rules1 or e&cept a

particular case fro$ its operation!

'he call for a liberal interpretation of the Rules is even $ore strident in the instant case whichpetitioners for$er counsel was obviously ne#li#ent in handlin# his case before the Court of Appeals! 0twas petitioners for$er counsel who failed to attach the reuired e&planation to the %etition in! Saidcounsel did not bother to infor$ petitioner1 his client1 of the Resolution of the appellate courtdis$issin# the %etition for lac" of the reuired e&planation! =orse1 said counsel totally abandonedpetitioners case by $erely allowin# the re#le$entary period for lin# a 2otion for Reconsideration tolapse without ta"in# any re$edial steps thus1 the +/ 8ove$ber .//6 Resolution beca$e nal ande&ecutory!

'he basic #eneral rule is that the ne#li#ence of counsel binds the client! ence1 if counsel

co$$its a $ista"e in the course of liti#ation1 thereby resultin# in his losin# the case1 his client $ustperforce suer the conseuences of the $ista"e! 'he reason for the rule is to avoid the possibility that

every losin# party would raise the issue of ne#li#ence of his or her counsel to escape an adversedecision of the court1 to the detri$ent of our ?ustice syste$1 as no party would ever accept a losin#verdict! 'his #eneral rule1 however1 pertains only to si$ple ne#li#ence of the lawyer! $here thenegligence of counsel is one that is so gross% palpa#le% pervasive% rec&less andine'cusa#le% then it does not #ind the client since% in such a case% the client is e"ectivelydeprived of his or her day in court.(1)*

'he circu$stances of this case ualify it under the e&ception1 rather than the #eneral rule! 'he

ne#li#ence of petitioners for$er counsel $ay be considered #ross since it invariably resulted to theforeclosure of re$edies otherwise readily available to the petitioner! 8ot only was petitioner deprivedof the opportunity to brin# his case before the Court of Appeals with the outri#ht dis$issal of his%etition on a technicality1 but he was also robbed of the chance to see" reconsideration of thedis$issal of his %etition! =hat further i$pel this Court to heed the call for substantial ?ustice are thepressin# $erits of this case which1 if left overshadowed by technicalities1 could result in Da#rantviolations of the provisions of the *abor Code and of the cate#orical $andate of the Constitution

aordin# protection to labor!

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/180551.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/180551.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/180551.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/180551.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/180551.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/180551.htm#_ftn12