Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83846:58383&catid=1589&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:13:20+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 189861, November 19, 2014 - MICHELIN ASIA APPLICATION CENTER, INC., Petitioner, v. MARIO J. ORTIZ, PACIFIC SUPPORT PETITIONER, Respondent.
MICHELIN ASIA APPLICATION CENTER, INC., Petitioner, v. MARIO J. ORTIZ, PACIFIC SUPPORT PETITIONER, Respondent.
In a Resolution25 dated March 24, 2008, the NLRC dismissed Ortiz's appeal for not having been duly perfected, observing that his Memorandum of Appeal was not accompanied by a certificate of non-forum shopping in violation of Section 4,26Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC27 (NLRC Rules).
Ortiz moved for reconsideration28 but was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution29 dated June 24, 2008, considering that his motion was filed out of time. In particular, the NLRC observed that Ortiz himself admitted that he received a copy of the resolution sought to be reconsidered on April 14, 2008. However, his motion for reconsideration was only filed on May 7, 2008, hence, beyond the 10-day reglementary period to perfect the same, in violation of the mandatory requirement under Section 15,30 Rule VII of the NLRC Rules.
In a Resolution33 dated September 22, 2008, the NLRC did not give due course to the second motion for reconsideration for being in violation also of Section 15,34Rule VII of the NLRC Rules, or the prohibition against second motions for reconsideration.
Undeterred, Ortiz, on December 12, 2008, filed a petition for certiorari35 before the CA assailing the LA Decision and the NLRC's March 24, 2008, June 24, 2008, and September 22, 2008 Resolutions.
In a Resolution36 dated December 19, 2008, the CA dismissed Ortiz's petition for having been filed out of time, remarking that a second motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was not allowed. The CA also dismissed the petition on the ground that a relevant pleading was not attached to it, i.e., Ortiz's reply.
The essential issue before the Court is whether or not the CA properly granted Ortiz's petition for certiorari and annulled the NLRC Resolutions.
Hence, by the foregoing consideration alone, the CA should have dismissed Ortiz's certiorari petition. But this is not all.
To compound his mistakes, Ortiz even filed a second motion for reconsideration, which is a prohibited pleading under the NLRC Rules. As a prohibited pleading, the filing of said motion could not have tolled the running of the 60-day reglementary period for the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA. Thus, since the NLRC's June 24, 2008 Resolution assailed by Ortiz's second motion for reconsideration was received by him on July 8, 2008,53 while his petition for certiorari before the CA was filed more than 60 days thereafter, or on December 12, 2008,54 his certiorari petition should have been dismissed outright for having been filed out of time.
Therefore, for all these reasons, the Court reverses the CA Decision and reinstates the NLRC Resolutions dismissing Ortiz's appeal. Accordingly, it is now unnecessary to delve on the other ancillary issues raised in the petition of Michelin ASC.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 2, 2009 and the Resolution dated September 29, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 106570 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Resolutions dated March 24, 2008, June 24, 2008, and September 22, 2008 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR LAC No. 01-000455-08 are REINSTATED.
Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.* Leonardo-De Castro, and Perez, JJ., concur.
2 Id. at 8-19. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. with Associate Justices Andres B.
3 Reyes, Jr. and Fernanda Lampas Peralta, concurring.
5 Id. at 235-237. Penned by Commissioner Tito F. Genilo with Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III, concurring.
6 Id. at 323-324. Penned by Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. with Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III, concurring.
7 See Position Paper filed by Michelin ASC dated August 9, 2007; id. at 93-94.
12 Id. See also id. at 129.
13 See Acknowledgment Receipt dated December 6, 2006; id. at 137.
17 Impleading as well John Ticzon, Michelin ASC's Service Center/Site Manager (see Position Paper of Ortiz filed on August 9, 2007); id at 560.
19 Id. at 185-197. Signed by Labor Arbiter Marita V. Padolina.
20 Id. at 190 and 196-197.
23 Id. at 154. See also id. at 191.
24 See Memorandum of Appeal dated January 25, 2008 docketed as NLRC LAC No. 01-000455-08; id. at 198-204.
26 SEC. 4. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal. — A) The Appeal shall be filed within the reglementary period as provided in Section 1 of this Rule; shall be verified by appellant himself in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, with proof of payment of the required appeal fee and the posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; shall be accompanied by memorandum of appeal in three (3) legibly typewritten copies which shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof; the relief prayed for, and a statement of the date when the appellant received the appealed decision, resolution or order and a certificate of non-forum shopping with proof of service on the other party of such appeal. A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal.
27 As Amended by NLRC RESOLUTION NO. 01-02, February 12, 2002 entitled "AMENDING CERTAIN Provisions of the New Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission."
30 SEC. 15. Motions for Reconsideration. — Motion for reconsideration of any decision resolution/order of the Commission shall not be entertained except when based on palpable or patent, errors, provided that the motion is under oath and filed within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of decision/resolution/order, with proof of service that a copy of the same has been furnished, within the reglementary period, the adverse party, and provided further, that only one such motion from the same party shall be entertained.
31 Titled as "Motion for Reconsideration"; rollo, pp. 262-264.
32 See "Opposition (to Complainant-Appellant's Second Motion for Reconsideration)" dated August 26, 2008; id. at 268-271.
36 Id. at 497. Issued by Division Clerk of Court Teresita C. Custodio.
38 See CA Resolution dated January 26, 2009 issued by Executive Clerk of Court II Caroline G. Ocampo- Peralta, MNSA; id. at 691. See also Michelin ASC's Comment dated February 24, 2009; id. at 526- 533.
43Ramos v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 203186, December 4, 2013; emphases and underscoring supplied.
47 G.R. No. 110226, June 19, 1997, 274 SCRA 159.
48 Art. 223. "(T)he decision of the Commission shall be final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties."
50Silva v. NLRC, supra note 47, at 167.
51Gomales v. Solid Cement Corporation, G.R. No. 198423, October 23, 2012, 684 SCRA 344, 350.
54 Id. at 40 and 298.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 Art. 223
 v. 
 v.