Dear Atty. Kathy,

Our company won a case up to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The complainants, former entry-level messengerial and janitorial personnel, filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA). According to our lawyer, the complainants only have 60 days to file the appeal or the Petition for Certiorari. However, the complainants did not file their appeal by the deadline. Instead, they filed a motion for extension and only filed their appeal on the 15th day after the deadline. Their reason, their lawyer just suddenly stopped communicating with them and they could not find their lawyer anymore, so they had to get a new lawyer. Will this be allowed when it should be the responsibility of complainants to make sure they defend their case, and when the rules clearly say that the appeal must be filed within 60 days?

Princess

θ θ θ

Dear Princess,

As ruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Fajardo, et al. vs. San Miguel Foods Inc., et al., in general, a petition for certiorari must be filed not later than 60 days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution complained of. The 60-day period is not extendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case.

However, the Supreme Court recognized the following exceptions to 60-day period, such as: (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; (3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default; (4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (5) the merits of the case; (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without appellant’s fault; (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case; (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play; (12) importance of the issues involved; and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances. In all, the Supreme Court has ruled that there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules.

Based solely on your narration, the complainant’s lawyer suddenly stopped communicating with them and they could not find him/her anymore. In this regard, the Supreme Court has also ruled that while the general rule is that a client is bound by the mistakes or negligence of their counsel, there are certain exceptions, viz.: (1) when the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; (2) when its application will result in the outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property; or (3) where the interests of justice so require. What this means is if the strict application of the rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, the Court is not without power to exercise its judicial discretion in relaxing the rules of procedure and prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Subject to verification that the complainants did not lack effort to get a new lawyer, and considering their entry-level positions as messengerial and janitorial personnel, who may not have the luxury of immediately getting a new lawyer, and who may not know the intricacies of the procedural rules, the Court may find that the foregoing circumstances constitute a compelling circumstance to allow the complainants to be heard by the CA.

(Catalino E. Fajardo, et al. vs. San Miguel Foods Inc., et al., G.R. No. 267580, 11 November 2024)

Atty. Kathy Larios