Concejero vs. Court of Appeals and Philippine National Bank

A court commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismisses a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the 60-day reglementary period provided by Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court has lapsed, even if the petitioner previously sought a shorter extension based on counsel's mistaken computation of the period. The court should have noted the motion for extension, allowed the petitioner to file within the full 60-day period, and recalled its premature dismissal when the petition was timely filed.

Petitioner Dennis M. Concejero was the Assistant Vice-President and Head of the Branch Operations Review Department (BORD) of respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB), responsible for reviewing compliance of domestic branches with internal control policies and procedures, and mandated to eradicate fraud and prosecute fraudsters. He was charged administratively by PNB's Administrative Board with abuse of authority, concealment of knowledge of commission of fraud, willful breach of trust resulting in loss of confidence, and gross misconduct, arising from alleged irregularities at the Pioneer Branch. The dispute concerns the procedural remedy available to an employee dismissed by a private employer whose dismissal was affirmed by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, namely, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed with the Court of Appeals.

Petitioner Dennis M. Concejero was the Assistant Vice-President and Head of the Branch Operations Review Department (BORD) of respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB), tasked with reviewing compliance of domestic branches with internal control policies and procedures, and mandated to eradicate fraud and prosecute fraudsters. In a Memorandum dated January 24, 2013, PNB, through its Administrative Board, charged petitioner with abuse of authority, concealment of knowledge of commission of fraud, deceit or other forms of irregularity, willful breach of trust resulting in loss of confidence, and gross misconduct. Petitioner submitted his Answer on February 4, 2013, and was placed under preventive suspension for 30 days beginning February 8, 2013. On February 13, 2013, PNB issued an implementing Order quoting the Administrative Board's Decision dated February 8, 2013, finding petitioner guilty of willful breach of trust resulting in loss of confidence and meting the penalty of dismissal.

On April 4, 2013, petitioner filed a Complaint for illegal suspension and dismissal, praying for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, full backwages, holiday pay, 13th month pay, allowances, bonuses, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter ruled on February 18, 2014 that the dismissal was for a just and valid cause and that petitioner was afforded due process, dismissing the complaint. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC, which denied the appeal on July 31, 2014, finding that petitioner willfully concealed irregular lending activities at the Pioneer Branch despite his knowledge thereof, and that loss of trust and confidence was a valid cause for dismissal. The NLRC denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration on September 17, 2014, and petitioner received a copy on September 23, 2014.

On October 8, 2014, or 21 days after receipt of the NLRC Resolution, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari, stating that he had until October 8, 2014 (or 15 days) to appeal, and praying for a 15-day extension or until October 23, 2014. On November 3, 2014, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case for absence of the appropriate Petition for Certiorari. Meanwhile, on October 23, 2014, petitioner's counsel filed a Manifestation and Motion stating that he overlooked Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which provides a 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari, and that the last day to file was November 22, 2014. On November 24, 2014, petitioner filed his Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated January 27, 2015, referred the Manifestation and Motion to PNB for comment. PNB filed a Comment/Opposition on February 20, 2015, praying that the Manifestation and Motion be denied. On June 18, 2015, the Court of Appeals noted the Manifestation and Motion, stating that there was no motion for reconsideration after the dismissal of the case per the Resolution of November 3, 2014, and ordered the entry of that Resolution. The Resolution dated November 3, 2014 became final and executory on June 18, 2015. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated June 18, 2015 was denied on March 4, 2016, the appellate court stating that there was no cogent legal basis for the recall of the Resolution of June 18, 2015, especially since the Resolution of November 3, 2014 had attained finality when it was not formally challenged.

• Premature Dismissal: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed CA-G.R. SP No. 137479 before the lapse of the 60-day reglementary period to file a petition under Rule 65, and that since the petition was filed within the prescribed period, nothing prevented the appellate court from reinstating the petition and adjudicating the case on the merits.
• Erroneous Computation Corrected: Petitioner contended that while his former counsel erroneously asked for a 15-day extension with the mistaken belief that he had an original period of 15 days only, this was corrected just in time when the same counsel filed the Manifestation and Motion dated October 22, 2014 pointing to the error.
• Deprivation of Rights: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals' acts of simply "noting" the Manifestation and Motion, ignoring the petition filed on time, and ordering the Entry of Resolution deprived him of his rights under the Rules of Court and contravened the dictates and guarantees of the Constitution.
• Evasion of Positive Duty: Petitioner alleged that the Court of Appeals evaded performance of a positive duty, thereby violating the Constitution and its internal rules.

• Denial of Manifestation and Motion: Respondent PNB filed a Comment/Opposition to the Manifestation and Motion, praying that it be denied for lack of merit, on the ground that petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated November 3, 2014 dismissing the case.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion in Dismissal: Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing petitioner's appeal from the Decision of the NLRC through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court in its Resolution dated November 3, 2014.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion in Dismissal: Yes. The Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the case on November 3, 2014, before the 60-day period to file the petition for certiorari under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court had expired, even though the petition was timely filed on November 24, 2014.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion in Dismissal: Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for certiorari shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution, and that in case a motion for reconsideration is timely filed, the 60-day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion. Petitioner received notice of the NLRC Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration on September 23, 2014, so he had until November 22, 2014 (the 60th day) to file his petition. However, November 22, 2014 fell on a Saturday; hence, under Section 1, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court, petitioner had until the next working day, November 24, 2014 (Monday), to file the petition. The Court of Appeals dismissed the case on November 3, 2014, because petitioner failed to file his petition on October 23, 2014 as prayed for in his earlier motion for extension, even if the 60-day period had not lapsed. The Court found that the appellate court gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the case before the 60-day period expired, because even if petitioner failed to file the petition on October 23, 2014, the case was not yet dismissible since petitioner was entitled to a 60-day period and had until November 24, 2014 to file it. The records show that petitioner timely filed his petition on November 24, 2014. The Court of Appeals should have noted the Motion for Extension of Time, considering that petitioner had 60 days within which to file the petition, and could have recalled its Resolution dated November 3, 2014 when petitioner timely filed his petition. Instead, in its Resolution dated June 18, 2015, the appellate court merely noted petitioner's Manifestation and Motion on the ground that petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated November 3, 2014, even if the records showed that petitioner filed his petition on time, and directed the entry of the Resolution. In effect, petitioner was deprived of the right to file his petition for certiorari within the 60-day period provided by Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

• Reglementary Period for Rule 65 Petitions — Under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a petition for certiorari must be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed; if a motion for reconsideration is timely filed, the 60-day period is counted from notice of the denial of said motion. The Court applied this rule to hold that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition before the 60-day period lapsed, even though the petitioner had earlier sought only a 15-day extension based on counsel's mistaken computation.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction is committed when a court acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic manner, or when it evades a positive duty imposed by law or the Rules. The Court found that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the Rule 65 petition before the 60-day reglementary period expired, and when it refused to recall its premature dismissal despite the timely filing of the petition.
• Computation of Time — Under Section 1, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court, in computing a period of time, the day of the act or event from which the period begins to run is excluded and the date of performance included; if the last day of the period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the time shall not run until the next working day. The Court applied this rule to determine that petitioner had until November 24, 2014 (Monday) to file his petition, since November 22, 2014 (the 60th day) fell on a Saturday.

• "The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion." — This is the controlling provision of Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which the Court applied to determine the reglementary period for filing the petition for certiorari.
• "Therefore, the Court finds that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the case on November 3, 2014 before the 60-day period to file the petition for certiorari expired." — This states the ratio decidendi of the case, identifying the appellate court's premature dismissal as the act constituting grave abuse of discretion.
• "In effect, petitioner was deprived of the right to file his petition for certiorari within the 60-day period provided by Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court." — This articulates the consequence of the Court of Appeals' erroneous dismissal, which the Supreme Court found to be a deprivation of the petitioner's procedural rights.

• Sagales vs. Rustan's Commercial Corporation — Cited by the NLRC in its Decision dated July 31, 2014, for the proposition that in loss of trust and confidence as a just cause for dismissal, it is sufficient that there is some basis for the loss of trust and confidence or reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct. This citation appears in the NLRC decision quoted in the case text, not in the Supreme Court's own reasoning.

• Section 4, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Provides that a petition for certiorari shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution, and that no extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days. The Court applied this provision to determine that petitioner had 60 days from September 23, 2014, or until November 22, 2014, to file his petition, and that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the case before this period lapsed.
• Section 1, Rule 22, Rules of Court — Provides the rule on computation of time, stating that the day of the act or event from which the period begins to run is excluded and the date of performance included, and that if the last day of the period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the time shall not run until the next working day. The Court applied this provision to hold that petitioner had until November 24, 2014 (Monday) to file his petition, since November 22, 2014 (the 60th day) fell on a Saturday.

Carpio (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concurred.