8/18/2015

G.R.No.191215

TodayisTuesday,August18,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.191215February3,2014
THENAMARIS PHILIPPINES, INC. (Formerly INTERMARE MARITIME AGENCIES, INC.)/ OCEANIC
NAVIGATIONLTD.andNICANORB.ALTARES,Petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and AMANDA C. MENDIGORIN (In behalf of her deceased husband GUILLERMO
MENDIGORIN),Respondents.
DECISION
DELCASTILLO,J.:
ThisPetitionforCertiorarifiledunderRule65oftheRulesofCourtassailstheResolution1datedNovember20,
2009oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.SPNo.110808forallegedlyhavingbeenissuedwithgraveabuse
ofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction.TheCA,throughthesaidResolution,entertainedprivate
respondent'sPetitionforCertiorari2despitehavingbeenfiled15dayslateandallowedhertocorrectthetechnical
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
deficienciesofthepetition.
FactualAntecedents
This case stemmed from a complaint for death benefits, unpaid salaries, sickness allowance, refund of medical
expenses, damages and attorneys fees filed by Amanda C. Mendigorin (private respondent) against petitioner
ThenamarisPhilippines,Inc.,formerlyIntermareMaritimeAgencies,Inc./OceanicNavigationLtd.,(Thenamaris),
representedbyitsgeneralmanager,Capt.NicanorB.Altares(petitioner),filedwiththeLaborArbiter(LA).Private
respondentisthewidowofseafarerGuillermoM.Mendigorin(Guillermo)whowasemployedbyThenamarisfor
27yearsasanoilerandeventually,assecondengineerinthelattersvessels.Guillermowasdiagnosedwithand
diedofcoloncancerduringthetermoftheemploymentcontractbetweenhimandThenamaris.
RulingoftheLaborArbiter
Ultimately,theLApromulgatedhisDecision5datedJanuary29,2008infavorofprivaterespondent.Thus:
WHEREFORE,theforegoingconsidered,judgmentisherebyrenderedinfavorofthecomplainant[hereinprivate
respondent] and finding respondents [herein petitioners] liable to pay jointly and severally: (a) death benefits
amountingtoUS$50,000.00atitspesoequivalentatthetimeofactualpayment(b)reimbursementofmedical
expenses amounting to P102,759.74 [(c)] moral and exemplary damages amounting to P100,000.00 and
P50,000.00respectivelyand(d)attorneysfeesinthe[amountof]tenpercent(10%)ofthetotalmonetaryaward.
AllotherclaimsareDENIED.6
RulingoftheNationalLaborRelationsCommission(NLRC)
Onappeal,theNLRCreversed7theLAsDecision.
Privaterespondentmovedforreconsideration.8InaResolution9datedJune29,2009,however,hermotionwas
deniedforlackofmerit.
Privaterespondent,throughcounsel,receivedtheJune29,2009ResolutionoftheNLRConJuly8,2009.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,theactuallastdayforfiling,fellonaSunday)withinwhichtofileapetitionforcertiorari.However,asher
counsel was then saddled and occupied with equally important cases, it would be impossible for him to file the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_191215_2014.html

1/8

8/18/2015

G.R.No.191215

petitionontime,especiallysincethecaseinvolvesvoluminousdocumentsnecessaryinthepreparationthereof.
Accordingly,privaterespondentaskedforanextensionof15daysfromSeptember7,2009,oruntilSeptember
22,2009,withinwhichtofilethepetition.
OnSeptember22,2009,privaterespondentfiledherPetitionforCertiorari11beforetheCA.
ActionoftheCourtofAppeals
In a Resolution12 dated November 20, 2009, the CA noted that private respondents Petition for Certiorari was
filed15dayslateandsuffersfromproceduralinfirmities.Nonetheless,intheinterestofsubstantialjustice,theCA
entertainedthepetitionanddirectedprivaterespondenttocurethetechnicalflawsinherpetition.Thus:
TheCourt,intheinterestofjustice,resolvedtoNOTEthepetitionforcertiorarifiledonSeptember22,2009,albeit
thesamewasfiledfifteen(15)dayslate.
Aperusaloftheinstantpetitionrevealsthefollowingproceduralinfirmities,namely:
(1)TheattachedVerification/CertificationofNonForumShoppingdoesnotconformwiththerequirements
under Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice, as a Community Tax Certificate is no
longerconsideredcompetentevidenceofanaffiantsidentityand
(2) Except for the copy of the Motion for Reconsideration filed with the National Labor Relations
Commission,noothercopiesofpertinentandrelevantpleadings/documentsareattachedtherewith,such
as petitioners Complaint, respondents Memorandum of Appeal, petitioners Opposition to Respondents
Appeal,ifany,allofwhichmayaidthisCourtinjudiciouslyresolvingtheissuesraisedinthepetition.
ACCORDINGLY, this Court, in line with the rule that cases should be determined on the merits, after full
opportunitytoallpartiesforventilationoftheircausesanddefenseshavebeengiven,ratherthanontechnicality
or some procedural imperfections, resolved to DIRECT petitioner to submit anew a Verification/Certification of
NonForum Shopping which complies with the requirements of the rules, and clear and legible copies of the
aforementionedpleadings/documents,withinten(10)daysfromreceiptofnoticehereof.
SOORDERED.13(Emphasisintheoriginal)
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Prayer to Dismiss,14 strongly opposing private respondents
MotionforExtensiontoFilePetitionforCertiorariforbeinganabsolutelyprohibitedpleading.CitingLagunaMetts
Corporationv.CourtofAppeals,15petitionersarguedthatA.M.No.07712SC16effectivelyrenderedthe60day
periodforfilingapetitionforcertiorarinonextendibleafteritdeletedportionsofRule65pertainingtoextensionof
timetofilepetition.Thus,astherulenowstands,petitionsforcertiorarimustbefiledstrictlywithin60daysfrom
noticeofjudgmentorfromtheorderdenyingamotionforreconsideration.17
Petitionersalsocontendedthatevenassumingthatanextensionisstillallowable,privaterespondentsmotionfor
extensionisneverthelessauselesspieceofpaperasitwasfiledbeyondthe60dayperiodforfilingapetitionfor
certiorari.
Lastly,petitionersassertedthatasprivaterespondentsmotionforextensionisaprohibitedpleading,aswellas
one filed outside of the reglementary period, then private respondents Petition for Certiorari is a mere scrap of
paper with no remedial value whatsoever. Consequently, the Decision of the NLRC has become final and
executoryandisbeyondtheambitofjudicialreview.
Inthemeantime,privaterespondentsubmittedherCompliance18withtheCAsResolutionofNovember20,2009.
Nevertheless,shestillfailedtoattachtheretocopiesofherComplaintfiledbeforetheLAandMemorandumfiled
withtheNLRC.
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
legiblecopiesofthestilllackingpleadingswithinfivedaysfromnoticethereof.
Thus,thepresentPetitionforCertiorari.
EntryofJudgment20wasalreadyissuedbytheNLRConAugust13,2009.PerNLRCRules,theJune29,2009
ResolutionbecamefinalandexecutoryonJuly18,2009andwasrecordedintheBookofEntriesofJudgment.
Issues
1. 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
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_191215_2014.html

2/8

8/18/2015

G.R.No.191215

BEYONDTHEMANDATORYANDJURISDICTIONAL60DAYPERIODREQUIREDBYSECTION4,RULE
65OFTHERULESOFCOURT,ASAMENDEDBYA.M.NO.07712SC.
2. THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT CA COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN, IN NOTING
THE VERY LATE PETITION FILED BY THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT, IT GROSSLY IGNORED THIS
HONORABLE COURTS VERY RECENT RULING IN LAGUNA METTS CORPORATION v. COURT OF
APPEALS,ARIESC.CAALAMANDGERALDINEESGUERRA(G.R.NO.185220,JULY27,2009),WHICH
DISALLOWED ANY MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
UNDERRULE65.21(Underscoringandemphasisintheoriginal)
OurRuling
Thereismeritinthepetition.
InRepublicv.St.VincentdePaulColleges,Inc.22wehadtheoccasiontosettletheseemingconflictonvarious
jurisprudencetouchingupontheissueofwhethertheperiodforfilingapetitionforcertiorarimaybeextended.In
saidcasewestatedthatthegeneralrule,aslaiddowninLagunaMettsCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,23isthat
a petition for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a
motion for reconsideration. This is in accordance with the amendment introduced by A.M. No. 07712SC24
wherenoprovisionforthefilingofamotionforextensiontofileapetitionforcertiorariexists,unlikeintheoriginal
Section 4 of Rule 6525 which allowed the filing of such a motion but only for compelling reason and in no case
exceeding15days.26Underexceptionalcases,however,andasheldinDomdomv.ThirdandFifthDivisionsof
theSandiganbayan,27the60dayperiodmaybeextendedsubjecttothecourtssounddiscretion.InDomdom,we
statedthatthedeletionoftheprovisionsinRule65pertainingtoextensionoftimedidnotmakethefilingofsuch
pleading absolutely prohibited. "If such were the intention, the deleted portion could just have simply been
reworded to state that no extension of time to file the petition shall be granted. Absent such a prohibition,
motionsforextensionareallowed,subjecttothecourtssounddiscretion."28
TheninLabaov.Flores,29welaiddownsomeoftheexceptionstothestrictapplicationofthe60dayperiodrule,
thus:
[T]herearerecognizedexceptionstotheirstrictobservance,suchas:(1)mostpersuasiveandweightyreasons
(2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed
procedure(3)goodfaithofthedefaultingpartybyimmediatelypayingwithinareasonabletimefromthetimeof
thedefault(4)theexistenceofspecialorcompellingcircumstances(5)themeritsofthecase(6)acausenot
entirelyattributabletothefaultornegligenceofthepartyfavoredbythesuspensionoftherules(7)alackofany
showingthatthereviewsoughtismerelyfrivolousanddilatory(8)theotherpartywillnotbeunjustlyprejudiced
thereby (9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without appellants fault (10) peculiar legal and
equitable circumstances attendant to each case (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play (12)
importanceoftheissuesinvolvedand(13)exerciseofsounddiscretionbythejudgeguidedbyalltheattendant
circumstances. Thus, there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a
reasonableormeritoriousexplanationforhis/herfailuretocomplywiththerules.
1 w p h i1

Inthiscase,counting60daysfromhercounselsreceiptoftheJune29,2009NLRCResolutiononJuly8,2009,
private respondent had until September 7, 2009 to file her petition or a motion for extension, as September 6,
2009,thelastdayforfilingsuchpleading,fellonaSunday.However,themotionwasfiledonlyonSeptember8,
2009.30 It is a fundamental rule of remedial law that a motion for extension of time must be filed before the
expirationoftheperiodsoughttobeextendedotherwise,thesameisofnoeffectsincetherewouldnolongerbe
anyperiodtoextend,andtheassailedjudgmentororderwillhavebecomefinalandexecutory.31
Additionally, as cited earlier in Labao, there should be an effort on the part of the litigant invoking liberality to
satisfactorilyexplainwhyheorshewasunabletoabidebytherules.32Here,thereasonofferedforavailingofthe
motion for extension is the heavy workload of private respondents counsel, which is hardly a compelling or
meritoriousreasonasenunciatedinLabao.Timeandagain,wehaveheldthattheexcuseof"heavyworkloadis
relativeandoftenselfserving.Standingalone,itisnotasufficientreasontodeviatefromthe60dayrule."33
Thus,privaterespondentsmotionforextensionshouldhavebeendeniedoutright.
Notably,theCAsNovember20,2009Resolutionrefrainedfromrulingonthetimelinessofprivaterespondents
motionforextension.Instead,itdirectlyruledonthePetitionforCertiorariasseenbyitsstatement"[t]heCourtxx
xresolvedtoNOTEthepetitionforcertiorarixxx,albeitthesamewasfiledfifteen(15)dayslate."Toourmind,
theforegoingpronouncementisanindirectacknowledgmentonthepartoftheCAthatthemotionforextension
wasindeedfiledlate.Yetitoptedtostillentertainand"note"thePetitionforCertiorari,justifyingitsactionasbeing
"intheinterestofjustice."
We do not approve of the CAs ruling on the matter because, as the motion for extension should have been
deniedoutright,itnecessarilyfollowsthatthePetitionforCertiorariis,inthewordsofpetitioners,a"merescrapof
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_191215_2014.html

3/8

8/18/2015

G.R.No.191215

paperwithnoremedialvaluewhatsoever."
InNegrosSlashers,Inc.v.Teng,34whichlikewisedealtwiththelatefilingofapetitionforcertiorari,werecognized
that although procedural rules ought to be strictly enforced by courts in order to impart stability in the legal
system,wehave,nonetheless,relaxedtherigidapplicationoftherulesofprocedureinseveralcasestoaffordthe
parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. This is because the ends of justice would be
betterservedifthepartiesweregiventhechancetoarguetheircausesanddefenses.Wearelikewiseconstantly
remindedthatthegeneralobjectiveofprocedureistofacilitatetheapplicationofjusticetotheopposingclaimsof
thecompetingpartiesandalwaysbeguidedbytheprinciplethatproceduremustnothinderbut,rather,promote
theadministrationofjustice.Concomitantthereto:
Courtshavetheprerogativetorelaxproceduralrulesofeventhemostmandatorycharacter,mindfuloftheduty
toreconcileboththeneedtospeedilyputanendtolitigationandthepartiesrighttodueprocess.Innumerous
cases, this Court has allowed liberal construction of the rules when to do so would serve the demands of
substantialjusticeandequity.xxx35
Here, even assuming that the late filing of the petition would merit relaxation of the rules, the CAs resolution
wouldhaveonlybeenacceptablehadprivaterespondentshownrespectfortherulesbysubmittingapetitionfor
certiorariwhichissufficientinform.Incontrast,whatprivaterespondentfiledwasapetitionplaguedbyseveral
infirmities.Worse,whentheCAallowedpetitionertocurethedeficiencies,shefailedtofullycomplysuchthatshe
hadtobegiven,albeitundeservingly,onelastchancetosubmitthestilllackingcopiesofthepertinentpleadings
requiredofherbytheCA.
More importantly, the CA should have dismissed the petition outright in view of the fact that the June 29, 2009
ResolutionoftheNLRCdenyingprivaterespondentsMotionforReconsiderationhadalreadybecomefinaland
executoryasofJuly18,2009.36Thus,ithasnojurisdictiontoentertainthepetition,excepttoorderitsdismissal.
InLabao,weheldthat:
TheNLRCsresolutionbecamefinalten(10)daysaftercounselsreceipt,andtherespondentsfailuretofilethe
petition within the required (60)day period rendered it impervious to any attack through a Rule 65 petition for
certiorari.Thus,nocourtcanexercisejurisdictiontoreviewtheresolution.
Needlesstostress,adecisionthathasacquiredfinalitybecomesimmutableandunalterableandmaynolonger
bemodifiedinanyrespect,evenifthemodificationismeanttocorrecterroneousconclusionsoffactorlawand
whetheritwillbemadebythecourtthatrendereditorbythehighestcourtoftheland.Alltheissuesbetweenthe
parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest once a judgment becomes final and executory execution of the
decisionproceedsasamatterofrightasvestedrightsareacquiredbythewinningparty.Justasalosingparty
hastherighttoappealwithintheprescribedperiod,thewinningpartyhasthecorrelativerighttoenjoythefinality
ofthedecisiononthecase.Afterall,adenialofapetitionforbeingtimebarredistantamounttoadecisiononthe
merits.Otherwise,therewillbenoendtolitigation,andthiswillsettonaughtthemainroleofcourtsofjusticeto
assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable
controversieswithfinality.37
Insum,theCAcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionwhenitextendedunderservedandunwarrantedliberalityto
private respondent. "There is grave abuse of discretion when there is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual
refusaltoperformadutyenjoinedbylawortoactincontemplationoflawaswhenthejudgmentrenderedisnot
basedonlawandevidencebutoncaprice,whimanddespotismxxx."38Suchispresenthereasshownbythe
CA'sobstinaterefusaltodismissthecasedespitethelatefilingofthemotionforextensionandtheflimsyexcuse
fortheextensionsought,thelatefilingofthepetitionandthenumerousinfirmitiesattendingthesame,andprivate
respondent's continued defiance of its directive. These circumstances serve to highlight private respondent's
propensitytodisregardtheveryrulesthatthecourts,thelitigantsandthelawyersaredutyboundtofollow.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyGRANTED.TheassailedCourtofAppealsResolutionsdatedNovember20,
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
AmandaC.MendigoriminCAG.R.SPNo.110808isDISMISSED.
SOORDERED.
MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_191215_2014.html

4/8

8/18/2015

G.R.No.191215

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1

CA rollo, pp. 98100 penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid and concurred in by Associate
JusticesSesinandoE.VillonandMichaelP.Elbinias.
2

Id.at927.

Id.at184.

Id.at106114.

Id. at 8093 penned by Labor Arbiter Enrique L. Flores, Jr. The LA, however, disallowed private
respondents claim for unpaid salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of Guillermos employment
contractforlackofbasisasthesameisonlyawardedinillegaldismissalcases.
6

Id.at93.

See Decision dated March 31, 2009, id. at 2836 penned by Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III and
concurred in by Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier took no
part.
TheNLRCdisagreedwiththeLAsapplicationoftheprovisionsofthe1996POEASECand,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 Guillermos deployment
wasonOctober22,2004.Whilethe1996POEASECcoversallinjuriesorillnessesoccurringduring
thetermofthecontractandthereneednotbeashowingthattheinjuryorillnessisworkrelated,the
2000 POEA SEC requires that the death, injury or illness occurring during the term of the contract
mustbeworkrelated.CitingGauShengPhils.,Inc.v.Joaquin(481Phil.222,234[2004]),theNLRC
ruled that for death compensation benefits to be awarded, there must be substantial evidence
showingthat:
a)Thecauseofdeathwasreasonablyconnectedwiththeworkofthedeceasedor
b)Thesicknessforwhichhediedisanacceptedoccupationaldiseaseor
c)Hisworkingconditionsincreasedtheriskofcontractingthediseaseforwhichhedied.
Inthiscase,theCAfoundthatcoloncancerisnotincludedinthelistofoccupationaldiseasesunder
Sec. 32A of the 2000 POEA SEC. Private respondent must, therefore, show a reasonable
connectionbetweentheworkofherdeceasedhusbandandthecauseofhisdeathorshowthatthe
riskofcontractingcoloncancerisincreasedbytheseamansworkingconditions.Privaterespondent
wasunabletoproveanyofthese.Thus,asGuillermosdeathwasnotworkrelated,theCAruledthat
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_191215_2014.html

5/8