Scribd
Upload
257 views3 pages

Building Care Corportion vs. Macaraeg

The Supreme Court granted the petitioners' appeal regarding a delay in filing an appeal from a labor arbiter's decision. The Court found that neither the respondent nor her former counsel provided an adequate explanation for the late filing. They did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to justify relaxing the rules. Allowing an untimely appeal undermines the finality of judgments and the vested rights attained once a decision becomes final. The Court held that the CA incorrectly accorded the respondent liberality by overlooking the belated filing absent compelling reasons.

Uploaded by

Jesi Carlos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
257 views3 pages

Building Care Corportion vs. Macaraeg

The Supreme Court granted the petitioners' appeal regarding a delay in filing an appeal from a labor arbiter's decision. The Court found that neither the respondent nor her former counsel provided an adequate explanation for the late filing. They did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to justify relaxing the rules. Allowing an untimely appeal undermines the finality of judgments and the vested rights attained once a decision becomes final. The Court held that the CA incorrectly accorded the respondent liberality by overlooking the belated filing absent compelling reasons.

Uploaded by

Jesi Carlos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

BUILDING CARE CORPORATION / LEOPARD SECURITY & INVESTIGATION

AGENCY and/or RUPERTO PROTACIO, Petitioners, vs. MYRNA MACARAEG,


Respondent.

G.R. No. 198357, December 10, 2012

PERALTA, J.:

TOPIC: DELAY IN FILING AN APPEAL

FACTS:

Petitioners are in the business of providing security services to their


clients. They hired respondent as a security guard and assigning her at Genato
Building in Caloocan City. However, respondent was relieved of her post. She
was re-assigned to Bayview Park Hotel but after that time, she was allegedly no
longer given any assignment.

Respondent filed an administrative complaint for illegal dismissal with


the PNP-Security Agencies and Guard Supervision Division but she did not
attend the conference hearings for said case. Petitioners brought to the
conference hearings a new assignment order detailing respondent at the Ateneo
de Manila University but, due to her absence, petitioners failed to personally
serve respondent said assignment order. Petitioners then sent respondent a
letter ordering her to report to headquarters for work assignment, but
respondent did not comply with said order. Instead, respondent filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter.

The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing the charge of illegal


dismissal as wanting in merit but it ordered the respondents Leopard Security
and Investigation Agency and Rupert Protacio to pay complainant a financial
assistance. Other claims were dismissed for lack of merit.

On appeal, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for having been filed out of
time, thereby declaring that the Labor Arbiter's decision had become final and
executor.

Respondent elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari. The
CA promulgated its decision granting the petition.

Petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the decision was denied. Hence,


this petition.
ISSUE:

DELAY IN FILING AN APPEAL: Whether or not the CA acted correctly by


according respondent liberality by overlooking the belated filing of the
appeal.

HELD:

In this case, the justifications given by the CA for its liberality by


choosing to overlook the belated filing of the appeal are, the importance of the
issue raised whether respondent was illegally dismissed and the belief that
respondent should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just
determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities,
considering that the belated filing of respondent's appeal before the NLRC was
the fault of respondent's former counsel. It is noted, however, that neither
respondent nor her former counsel gave any explanation or reason citing
extraordinary circumstances for her lawyer's failure to abide by the rules for
filing an appeal. Respondent merely insisted that she had not been remiss in
following up her case with said lawyer.

It is, however, an oft-repeated ruling that the negligence and mistakes of


counsel bind the client. A departure from this rule would bring about never-
ending suits, so long as lawyers could allege their own fault or negligence to
support the client’s case and obtain remedies and reliefs already lost by the
operation of law. The only exception would be, where the lawyer's gross
negligence would result in the grave injustice of depriving his client of the due
process of law. In this case, there was no such deprivation of due process.
Respondent was able to fully present and argue her case before the Labor
Arbiter. She was accorded the opportunity to be heard. Her failure to appeal
the Labor Arbiter's Decision cannot, therefore, be deemed as a deprivation of
her right to due process.

The right to appeal is not a natural right or part of due process; it is


merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in
accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right
to appeal must strictly comply with the requirements of the rules, and failure
to do so leads to the loss of the right to appeal.

Clearly, allowing an appeal, even if belatedly filed, should never be taken


lightly. The judgment attains finality by the lapse of the period for taking an
appeal without such appeal or motion for reconsideration being filed. The
decision of the Labor Arbiter, therefore, became final and executory as to
respondent when she failed to file a timely appeal therefrom. The importance of
the concept of finality of judgment cannot be gainsaid.
When the Labor Arbiter's decision became final, petitioners attained a
vested right to said judgment. They had the right to fully rely on the
immutability of said decision.

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 the Court that the CA acted
correctly by according respondent such liberality.

ADJUDICATION:

Petition is granted.

You might also like