Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Galan
GR No, 143389, May 25 2001
Facts: Edwin Galan was initially hired by petitioner Pfizer Inc. as a medical representative and
later on promoted as the District Manager for Mindanao. In September 1997, respondent was
recalled to Manila to meet with his superiors. In the meeting, a memorandum was issued
requiring him to explain his alleged unauthorized use of, and questionable expense claims made
on, the company vehicle, as well as the doubtful liquidation of his cash advance of US 5,000. In
the meantime, he was placed in a preventive suspension. On October 1998, he received a Notice
of Termination signed by petitioner Lleander, the cause of which was loss of trust and
confidence.
Galan filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC RAB No. 9 in Zamboanga
City. The LA declared that respondent was illegally dismissed and is entitled to monetary award.
Petitioner appealed the decision to the NLRC CDO but the same was affirmed and entry of
judgment was made.
Before the issuance of the writ of execution, petitioners filed with the CA a petition for
certiorari. However, the same was dismissed on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the
60-day reglementary period. Also, the Verification that was executed by Cleofe Legaspi
(Employment Specialist) was not properly executed. Petitioners filed a MR but the same was
denied.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of being failed out of
time.
(2) Whether or not the Verification executed by Cleofe Legaspi sufficient.
Ruling:
(1) NO. By virtue of the retroactive effect of the amendment of Section 4, Rule 65 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure introduced by Resolution in AM No 00-2-03- SC, which
allows the filing of a petition for certiorari within sixty days from notice of the denial of a
MR, the filing of petitioners petition before the CA was on time. Indeed, there is no
dispute that their petition was filed on the sixtieth day from notice of the denial of their
MR.
(2) YES. The SC ruled that the purpose of verification was served in the instant case. Cleofe
Legaspi coordinated and actually participated in the investigation of the administrative
charges against respondent. As such, she was in a position to verify the truthfulness and
correctness of the allegations in the petition.