Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82731:56563&catid=1580&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:00:59+00:00

Document:
THENAMARIS PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY INTERMARE MARITIME AGENCIES, INC.)/ OCEANIC NAVIGATION LTD. AND NICANOR B. ALTARES, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND AMANDA C. MENDIGORIN (IN BEHALF OF HER DECEASED HUSBAND GUILLERMO MENDIGORIN), Respondents.
This Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assails the Resolution1 dated November 20, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA–G.R. SP No. 110808 for allegedly having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The CA, through the said Resolution, entertained private respondent’s Petition for Certiorari2 despite having been filed 15 days late and allowed her to correct the technical infirmities therein. Also assailed is the CA’s February 10, 2010 Resolution3 denying petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration with Prayer to Dismiss4 and giving private respondent another chance to cure the remaining deficiencies of the petition.
This case stemmed from a complaint for death benefits, unpaid salaries, sickness allowance, refund of medical expenses, damages and attorney’s fees filed by Amanda C. Mendigorin (private respondent) against petitioner Thenamaris Philippines, Inc., formerly Intermare Maritime Agencies, Inc./Oceanic Navigation Ltd., (Thenamaris), represented by its general manager, Capt. Nicanor B. Altares (petitioner), filed with the Labor Arbiter (LA). Private respondent is the widow of seafarer Guillermo M. Mendigorin (Guillermo) who was employed by Thenamaris for 27 years as an oiler and eventually, as second engineer in the latter’s vessels. Guillermo was diagnosed with and died of colon cancer during the term of the employment contract between him and Thenamaris.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the complainant [herein private respondent] and finding respondents [herein petitioners] liable to pay jointly and severally: (a) death benefits amounting to US $50,000.00 at its peso equivalent at the time of actual payment; (b) reimbursement of medical expenses amounting to P102,759.74; [(c)] moral and exemplary damages amounting to P100,000.00 and P50,000.00 respectively; and (d) attorney’s fees in the [amount of] ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed7 the LA’s Decision.
Private respondent moved for reconsideration.8 In a Resolution9 dated June 29, 2009, however, her motion was denied for lack of merit.
Private respondent, through counsel, received the June 29, 2009 Resolution of the NLRC on July 8, 2009. Sixty–two days thereafter, or on September 8, 2009, she filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari10 before the CA. Private respondent alleged that she had until September 7, 2009 (as September 6, 2009, the actual last day for filing, fell on a Sunday) within which to file a petition for certiorari. However, as her counsel was then saddled and occupied with equally important cases, it would be impossible for him to file the petition on time, especially since the case involves voluminous documents necessary in the preparation thereof. Accordingly, private respondent asked for an extension of 15 days from September 7, 2009, or until September 22, 2009, within which to file the petition.
On September 22, 2009, private respondent filed her Petition for Certiorari11 before the CA.
The Court, in the interest of justice, resolved to NOTE the petition for certiorari filed on September 22, 2009, albeit the same was filed fifteen (15) days late.
Except for the copy of the Motion for Reconsideration filed with the National Labor Relations Commission, no other copies of pertinent and relevant pleadings/documents are attached therewith, such as petitioner’s Complaint, respondent’s Memorandum of Appeal, petitioner’s Opposition to Respondent’s Appeal, if any, all of which may aid this Court in judiciously resolving the issues raised in the petition.
ACCORDINGLY, this Court, in line with the rule that cases should be determined on the merits, after full opportunity to all parties for ventilation of their causes and defenses have been given, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections, resolved to DIRECT petitioner to submit anew a Verification/Certification of Non–Forum Shopping which complies with the requirements of the rules, and clear and legible copies of the aforementioned pleadings/documents, within ten (10) days from receipt of notice hereof.
Petitioners also contended that even assuming that an extension is still allowable, private respondent’s motion for extension is nevertheless a useless piece of paper as it was filed beyond the 60–day period for filing a petition for certiorari.
Lastly, petitioners asserted that as private respondent’s motion for extension is a prohibited pleading, as well as one filed outside of the reglementary period, then private respondent’s Petition for Certiorari is a mere scrap of paper with no remedial value whatsoever. Consequently, the Decision of the NLRC has become final and executory and is beyond the ambit of judicial review.
In the meantime, private respondent submitted her Compliance18 with the CA’s Resolution of November 20, 2009. Nevertheless, she still failed to attach thereto copies of her Complaint filed before the LA and Memorandum filed with the NLRC.
In a Resolution19 dated February 10, 2010, the CA denied petitioners’ motion and, instead, gave private respondent one last opportunity to fully comply with its November 20, 2009 Resolution by submitting clear and legible copies of the still lacking pleadings within five days from notice thereof.
Thus, the present Petition for Certiorari.
Entry of Judgment20 was already issued by the NLRC on August 13, 2009. Per NLRC Rules, the June 29, 2009 Resolution became final and executory on July 18, 2009 and was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgment.
THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT CA COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT NOTED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED BY THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT INSTEAD OF DISMISSING IT OUTRIGHT FOR HAVING BEEN FILED BEYOND THE MANDATORY AND JURISDICTIONAL 60–DAY PERIOD REQUIRED BY SECTION 4, RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT, AS AMENDED BY A.M. NO. 07–7–12–SC.
[T]here are recognized exceptions to their strict observance, such as: (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; (3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default; (4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (5) the merits of the case; (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without appellant’s fault; (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case; (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play; (12) importance of the issues involved; and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances. Thus, there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules.
Additionally, as cited earlier in Labao, there should be an effort on the part of the litigant invoking liberality to satisfactorily explain why he or she was unable to abide by the rules.32 Here, the reason offered for availing of the motion for extension is the heavy workload of private respondent’s counsel, which is hardly a compelling or meritorious reason as enunciated in Labao. Time and again, we have held that the excuse of “[h]eavy workload is relative and often self–serving. Standing alone, it is not a sufficient reason to deviate from the 60–day rule.”33 Thus, private respondent’s motion for extension should have been denied outright.
Here, even assuming that the late filing of the petition would merit relaxation of the rules, the CA’s resolution would have only been acceptable had private respondent shown respect for the rules by submitting a petition for certiorari which is sufficient in form. In contrast, what private respondent filed was a petition plagued by several infirmities. Worse, when the CA allowed petitioner to cure the deficiencies, she failed to fully comply such that she had to be given, albeit undeservingly, one last chance to submit the still lacking copies of the pertinent pleadings required of her by the CA.
The NLRC’s resolution became final ten (10) days after counsel’s receipt, and the respondent’s failure to file the petition within the required (60)–day period rendered it impervious to any attack through a Rule 65 petition for certiorari. Thus, no court can exercise jurisdiction to review the resolution.
In sum, the CA committed grave abuse of discretion when it extended underserved and unwarranted liberality to private respondent. “There is grave abuse of discretion when there is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when the judgment rendered is not based on law and evidence but on caprice, whim and despotism x x x.”38 Such is present here as shown by the CA’s obstinate refusal to dismiss the case despite the late filing of the motion for extension and the flimsy excuse for the extension sought, the late filing of the petition and the numerous infirmities attending the same, and private respondent’s continued defiance of its directive. These circumstances serve to highlight private respondent’s propensity to disregard the very rules that the courts, the litigants and the lawyers are duty–bound to follow.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Court of Appeals Resolutions dated November 20, 2009 and February 10, 2010 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Petition for Certiorari filed by private respondent Amanda C. Mendigorim in CA–G.R. SP No. 110808 is DISMISSED.
1 CA rollo, pp. 98–100; penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid and concurred in by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Michael P. Elbinias.
5 Id. at 80–93; penned by Labor Arbiter Enrique L. Flores, Jr. The LA, however, disallowed private respondent’s claim for unpaid salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of Guillermo’s employment contract for lack of basis as the same is only awarded in illegal dismissal cases.
7 See Decision dated March 31, 2009, id. at 28–36; penned by Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III and concurred in by Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier took no part.
The NLRC disagreed with the LA’s application of the provisions of the 1996 POEA SEC and, instead, held that it is the 2000 POEA SEC that is controlling in this case as the employment contract was executed between petitioners and Guillermo on September 20, 2004 and Guillermo’s deployment was on October 22, 2004. While the 1996 POEA SEC covers all injuries or illnesses occurring during the term of the contract and there need not be a showing that the injury or illness is work–related, the 2000 POEA SEC requires that the death, injury or illness occurring during the term of the contract must be work–related.
c) His working conditions increased the risk of contracting the disease for which he died.
In this case, the CA found that colon cancer is not included in the list of occupational diseases under Sec. 32–A of the 2000 POEA SEC. Private respondent must, therefore, show a reasonable connection between the work of her deceased husband and the cause of his death or show that the risk of contracting colon cancer is increased by the seaman’s working conditions. Private respondent was unable to prove any of these. Thus, as Guillermo’s death was not work–related, the CA ruled that the hospital and medical expenses incurred by Guillermo after May 22, 2005 (the date when the company–designated physician proclaimed that Guillermo’s illness is not work–related) could not be passed on to petitioners. Likewise, the award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’ fees was not proper.
8 See Motion for Reconsideration, id. at 37–42.
9 Id. at 43–44; penned by Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Alex A. Lopez and Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr.
15 G.R. No. 185220, July 27, 2009, 594 SCRA 139.
16 AMENDMENTS TO RULES 41, 45, 58 AND 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT.
In granting the private respondent’s motion for extension of time to file petition for certiorari, the Court of Appeals disregarded A.M. No. 07–7–12–SC. The action amounted to a modification, if not outright reversal, by the Court of Appeals of A.M. No. 07–7–12–SC. In so doing, the Court of Appeals arrogated to itself a power it did not possess, a power that only this Court may exercise. For this reason, the challenged resolutions x x x were invalid as they were rendered by the Court of Appeals in excess of its jurisdiction.
18 CA rollo, pp. 115–183.
22 G.R. No. 192908, August 22, 2012, 678 SCRA 738, 747–750.
23 Supra note 15 at 144–146.
If the Court intended to retain the authority of the proper courts to grant extensions under Section 4 of Rule 65, the paragraph providing for such authority would have been preserved. The removal of the said paragraph under the amendment by A.M. No. 07–7–12–SC of Section 4, Rule 65 simply meant that there can no longer be any extension of the 60–day period within which to file a petition for certiorari.
Sec. 4. When and where petition filed. – 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 petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted from notice of the denial of the motion.
If the petition relates to an act or omission of a municipal trial court or of a corporation, a board, an officer or a person, it shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed with the Court of Appeals or with the Sandiganbayan, whether or not the same is in aid of the court’s appellate jurisdiction. If the petition involves an act or omission of a quasi–judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed with and be cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi–judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
26 In Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals, supra note 15, we explained that the amendments were necessary to prevent the use (or abuse) of the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to delay a case or even defeat the ends of justice. Besides, the 60–day period provided under the Rules for filing a petition is already sufficient time for a party to ponder over the case and to prepare a petition imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court or tribunal.
27 G.R. Nos. 182382–83, February 24, 2010, 613 SCRA 528.
29 G.R. No. 187984, November 15, 2010, 634 SCRA 723, 732.
31Vda. de Victoria v. Court of Appeals, 490 Phil. 210, 221–222.
32 See also Vda. de Victoria v. Court of Appeals, id. at 224.
33Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals, supra note 15 at 146.
34 G.R. No. 187122, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 629, 639.
35 Id., citing Ong Lim Sing, Jr. v. FEB Leasing & Finance Corporation, G.R. No. 168115, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 333, 343.
37 Supra note 29 at 734–735.
38Sugar Regulatory Administration v. Tormon, G.R. No. 195640, December 4, 2012, 686 SCRA 854, 868.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.