Technical Rules

Reyes vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 180551
Facts:
Before this Court is a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court filed
by petitioner Erwin H. Reyes seeking to reverse and set aside the Resolutions the Court of
Appeals. the appellate court dismissed petitioners Petition for Certiorari therein for failure to give an
explanation why copy of the said Petition was not personally served upon the counsel of the
respondents.
The Petitioner file a Complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for moral and exemplary damages and
attorneys fees against the respondents Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines (CCBP) and Rotaida Taguibao
(Taguibao) before the Labor Arbiter on 14 June 2004. In his Complaint, petitioner alleged that he was
first employed by respondent CCBP, through Interserve Manpower Agency (Interserve), as a Leadman.
Petitioner was initially assigned to the Mendiola Sales Office of respondent CCBP. Petitioners
employment contract was renewed every five months and he was assigned a different task every
time. Such an arrangement continued until petitioner was directly hired by respondent CCBP as a
Route Salesman. Exactly one year from the time of petitioners employment as a Route Salesman,
respondent CCBP, thru Taguibao, terminated his services where he already acquired the status of a
regular employee, petitioner asserted that his dismissal from employment without the benefit of due
process was unlawful. opposing the Complaint, respondent CCBP refuted petitioners allegation that he
was a regular employee. Petitioners employment was for a fixed period of three months, which was
subsequently extended with petitioners consent. the Labor Arbiter promulgated his Decision, favoring
petitioner, since there was insufficient evidence to sustain the averment of respondents CCBP and
Taguibao that petitioners employment was for a fixed period. the respondents reinstated the petitioner
to his former position. However, respondents CCBP and Taguibao, Appealed before the NLRC but later
on dismissed. NLRC reduced the amount of backwages awarded to petitioner and deleted the order for
his reinstatement. All the parties moved for the reconsideration of the foregoing NLRC Decision but
denied. The petitioner elevated his case before the Court of Appeals by filing a Petition for Certiorari he
averred in his Petition that the NLRC abused its discretion in ignoring the established facts and legal
principles when it modified the award for his backwages and deleted the order for his reinstatement.
The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners Petition for Certiorari for his failure to give any
explanation why a copy of the said Petition was not personally served upon the counsel of the adverse
parties. Since petitioner failed to timely file a Motion for Reconsideration, the Resolution dated 10
November 2006 of the Court of Appeals became final and executory, and an Entry of Judgment was
made.
On 19 July 2007, petitioners new counsel filed an Entry of Appearance with an Urgent Motion
for Reconsideration. Petitioner, through his new counsel, sought for the liberality of the Court of
Appeals, faulting his former counsel for the procedural defects of his Petition and for his failure to
seasonably seek reconsideration of the 10 November 2006 Resolution of the appellate court. Also, this
time, it would appear that petitioner provided the explanation required by Section 11, Rule 13 of the
Revised Rules of Court. In a Resolution dated 9 November 2007, the Court of Appeals denied
petitioners Urgent Motion for Reconsideration for being filed out of time.
Hence, petitioner via the instant Special Civil Action for Certiorari assails the Resolutions of the
Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.
Issue
Whether or not the for petitioners failure to comply with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of
Court, should expunged his case from the records even though there is a negligence on the part of his
former counsel?
Held
It is true that for petitioners failure to comply with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court,
his petition should be expunged from the records. Nevertheless, the Rules of Court itself calls for its

liberal construction, with the view of promoting their objective of securing a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. The Court is fully aware that procedural rules
are not to be belittled or simply disregarded for these prescribed procedures insure an orderly and
speedy administration of justice. However, it is equally true that litigation is not merely a game of
technicalities. Law and jurisprudence grant to courts the prerogative to relax compliance with
procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need
to put an end to litigation speedily and the parties right to an opportunity to be heard
In numerous cases,[12] the Court has allowed liberal construction of Section 11, Rule 13 of the
Revised Rules of Court when doing so would be in the service of the demands of substantial justice and
in the exercise of the equity jurisdiction of this Court. In one such case, Fulgencio v. National Labor
Relations Commission,[13] this Court provided the following justification for its non-insistence on a
written explanation as required by Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court:
The rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the
attainment of justice. They were conceived and promulgated to effectively
aid the court in the dispensation of justice.Courts are not slaves to or robots
of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice, courts have
always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on the
balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other
way around. Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than
promote justice, it is always within our power to suspend the rules, or except a
particular case from its operation.
The call for a liberal interpretation of the Rules is even more strident in the instant case which
petitioners former counsel was obviously negligent in handling his case before the Court of Appeals. It
was petitioners former counsel who failed to attach the required explanation to the Petition in. Said
counsel did not bother to inform petitioner, his client, of the Resolution of the appellate court
dismissing the Petition for lack of the required explanation. Worse, said counsel totally abandoned
petitioners case by merely allowing the reglementary period for filing a Motion for Reconsideration to
lapse without taking any remedial steps; thus, the 10 November 2006 Resolution became final and
executory.
The basic general rule is that the negligence of counsel binds the client. Hence, if counsel
commits a mistake in the course of litigation, thereby resulting in his losing the case, his client must
perforce suffer the consequences of the mistake. The reason for the rule is to avoid the possibility that
every losing party would raise the issue of negligence of his or her counsel to escape an adverse
decision of the court, to the detriment of our justice system, as no party would ever accept a losing
verdict. This general rule, however, pertains only to simple negligence of the lawyer. Where the
negligence of counsel is one that is so gross, palpable, pervasive, reckless and
inexcusable, then it does not bind the client since, in such a case, the client is effectively
deprived of his or her day in court.[14]
The circumstances of this case qualify it under the exception, rather than the general rule. The
negligence of petitioners former counsel may be considered gross since it invariably resulted to the
foreclosure of remedies otherwise readily available to the petitioner. Not only was petitioner deprived
of the opportunity to bring his case before the Court of Appeals with the outright dismissal of his
Petition on a technicality, but he was also robbed of the chance to seek reconsideration of the
dismissal of his Petition. What further impel this Court to heed the call for substantial justice are the
pressing merits of this case which, if left overshadowed by technicalities, could result in flagrant
violations of the provisions of the Labor Code and of the categorical mandate of the Constitution
affording protection to labor.