Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, praying that the Decision1of the Court of Appeals (CA) promulgated
on March 24, 2011, and its Resolution 2 dated August 19, 2011, denying
petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration be reversed and set aside.
Petitioners are in the business of providing security services to their clients.
They hired respondent as a security guard beginning August 25, 1996,
assigning her at Genato Building in Caloocan City. However, on March 9,
2008, respondent was relieved of her post. She was re-assigned to Bayview
Park Hotel from March 9-13, 2008, but after said period, she was allegedly no
longer given any assignment. Thus, on September 9, 2008, respondent filed
a complaint against petitioners for illegal dismissal, underpayment of
salaries, non-payment of separation pay and refund of cash bond.
Conciliation and mediation proceedings failed, so the parties were ordered to
submit their respective position papers.3
Respondent claimed that petitioners failed to give her an assignment for
more than nine months, amounting to constructive dismissal, and this
compelled her to file the complaint for illegal dismissal.4
On the other hand, petitioners alleged in their position paper that respondent
was relieved from her post as requested by the client because of her habitual
tardiness, persistent borrowing of money from employees and tenants of the
client, and sleeping on the job. Petitioners allegedly directed respondent to
explain why she committed such infractions, but respondent failed to heed
such order. Respondent was nevertheless temporarily assigned to Bayview
Park Hotel from March 9-13, 2008, but she also failed to meet said client's
standards and her posting thereat was not extended.5
Respondent then filed an administrative complaint for illegal dismissal with
the PNP-Security Agencies and Guard Supervision Division on June 18, 2008,
but she did not attend the conference hearings for said case. Petitioners
brought to the conference hearings a new assignment order detailing
The Court will not override the finality and immutability of a judgment based
only on the negligence of a partys counsel in timely taking all the proper
recourses from the judgment. To justify an override, the counsels negligence
must not only be gross but must also be shown to have deprived the party
the right to due process.
In sum, the Court cannot countenance relaxation of the rules absent the
showing of extraordinary circumstances to justify the same. In this case, no
compelling reasons can be found to convince this Court that the CA acted
correctly by according respondent such liberality.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals dated March 24, 2011, and its Resolution dated August 19,
2011 in CA-G.R. SP No. 114822 are hereby SET ASIDE, and the Decision of
the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC-LAC No. 07-001892-09
(NLRC Case No. NCR-09-12628-08), ruling that the Decision of the Labor
Arbiter has become final and executory, is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTURO D. BRION*
Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
Footnotes
Designated Acting Member, in lieu of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.,
per Special Order No. 1395 dated December 6, 2012.
*
**
Id. at 12.
Id. at 12-13 (Respondent's [herein petitioner] Position Paper filed with the
NLRC).
5
Id. at 128-130.
10
11
12
13
14
Melchor L. Lagua v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 173390, June 27, 2012;
Panay Railways, Inc. v. Heva Management and Development Corp., et al., G.R.
No. 154061, January 25, 2012; 664 SCRA 1, 9.
15
Pasiona, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165471, July 21, 2008, 559 SCRA 137,
147.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Id. at 49.
24
25
26
G.R. No. 157810, February 15, 2012; 666 SCRA 55, 58.