Michelin Asia Pacific Application Support Center, Inc. vs. Mario J. Ortiz

A timely motion for reconsideration is mandatory to forestall the finality of an NLRC resolution; failure to file it within the 10-day reglementary period renders the resolution final and executory, and a prohibited second motion for reconsideration does not toll the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Michelin ASC is an affiliate of the Michelin Group, which launched the "Tonus" initiative to improve working methods, increase efficiency, and reduce fixed costs across all affiliates, functions, and departments globally. Ortiz was employed by Michelin ASC as Personnel Manager, with responsibilities in recruitment, probation and employee contract monitoring, medical claims, and payroll, among others.

On March 1, 2003, Ortiz was employed by Michelin ASC as Personnel Manager and was involved in the processes of recruitment, probation and employee contract monitoring, medical claims, and payroll, among others. In line with the Michelin Group's "Tonus" initiative—a program for improving working methods, increasing efficiency, and reducing fixed costs across all of its affiliates, functions, and departments globally—a formal review of the Service Personnel processes at Michelin ASC was conducted. The results determined that the functions of the Personnel Manager could be absorbed by the Service Center/Site Manager and/or Assistant Personnel Manager.

On November 30, 2006, Michelin ASC sent Ortiz a letter informing him of the termination of his employment effective the close of business on December 31, 2006 on the ground of redundancy. Michelin ASC also notified the Department of Labor and Employment - Regional Office about Ortiz's intended termination and submitted an Establishment Termination Report. On December 6, 2006, Ortiz accepted a separation package in the amount of ₱2,225,561.66 and executed a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim in favor of Michelin ASC. He also signed a Final Pay Computation evidencing payment of the said amount.

On February 27, 2007, Ortiz filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Michelin ASC, docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-02-01810-07. He claimed, among others, that: (a) he was not aware that Michelin ASC had an impending redundancy program; (b) he was promised a separation package in the amount of 2.5 months' salary for every year of service; and (c) he was offered a lesser package upon his termination but was forced to accept the same since he had a family to support and was then 53 years old.

In a Decision dated November 27, 2007, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint, holding that Michelin ASC complied with the statutory requirements of a valid redundancy program and that the same was conducted in good faith. The Labor Arbiter pointed out that Ortiz executed a quitclaim in favor of Michelin ASC and had received the total of ₱2,225,561.66, which amount was more than what the law provides as separation pay. The Labor Arbiter did not sustain Ortiz's claim regarding the separation package amounting to 2.5 months' salary for every year of service, considering the Affidavit executed by Michelin ASC's Senior Legal Counsel, Angeline Khoo, denying the same.

• Redundancy Notice: In his illegal dismissal complaint, Ortiz claimed that he was not aware that Michelin ASC had an impending redundancy program.
• Separation Package: In his illegal dismissal complaint, Ortiz claimed that he was promised a separation package of 2.5 months' salary for every year of service but was offered a lesser package upon his termination.
• Forced Acceptance: In his illegal dismissal complaint, Ortiz claimed that he was forced to accept the lesser package because he had a family to support and was then 53 years old.

• Certiorari and Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the CA properly granted Ortiz's petition for certiorari and annulled the NLRC Resolutions.
• Finality of the NLRC Resolution: Whether the NLRC's March 24, 2008 Resolution became final and executory due to Ortiz's failure to file a timely motion for reconsideration.
• Second Motion for Reconsideration and Timeliness of Certiorari: Whether Ortiz's second motion for reconsideration tolled the 60-day reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

• Certiorari and Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The CA improperly granted the petition; the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing Ortiz's appeal for procedural infractions.
• Finality of the NLRC Resolution: Yes. The March 24, 2008 Resolution became final and executory because the motion for reconsideration was filed beyond the 10-day reglementary period under Article 223 of the Labor Code and Section 15, Rule VII of the NLRC Rules.
• Second Motion for Reconsideration and Timeliness of Certiorari: No. The second motion for reconsideration was a prohibited pleading and did not toll the 60-day period; the certiorari petition was filed out of time.

• Certiorari and Grave Abuse of Discretion: Certiorari requires grave abuse of discretion, defined as judgment exercised in a capricious and whimsical manner tantamount to lack of jurisdiction, or discretionary authority exercised in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by law. The NLRC dismissed Ortiz's appeal due to: (a) failure to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping to his Memorandum of Appeal, violating Section 4, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules; (b) filing a motion for reconsideration of the March 24, 2008 Resolution beyond the 10-day reglementary period, violating Section 15, Rule VII of the NLRC Rules; and (c) filing a second motion for reconsideration, also violating Section 15, Rule VII. The NLRC acted in due observance of its own procedural rules. No grave abuse of discretion was committed, and the CA should have dismissed Ortiz's certiorari petition.
• Finality of the NLRC Resolution: Ortiz admitted receiving a copy of the resolution sought to be reconsidered on April 14, 2008, but his motion for reconsideration was filed only on May 7, 2008, beyond the 10-day reglementary period. Under Article 223 of the Labor Code, the decision of the Commission is final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties. Silva vs. NLRC instructs that the seasonable filing of a motion for reconsideration within the 10-day reglementary period is a mandatory requirement to forestall finality. Failure to comply rendered the March 24, 2008 Resolution final and executory. A definitive final judgment, however erroneous, is no longer subject to change or revision; a final judgment is immutable and unalterable, precluding modification even to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, as held in Gonzales vs. Solid Cement Corporation. Thus, the CA should have dismissed Ortiz's certiorari petition on this ground alone.
• Second Motion for Reconsideration and Timeliness of Certiorari: Ortiz filed a second motion for reconsideration, which is a prohibited pleading under Section 15, Rule VII of the NLRC Rules. As a prohibited pleading, it could not have tolled the running of the 60-day reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA. The NLRC's June 24, 2008 Resolution assailed by Ortiz's second motion for reconsideration was received by him on July 8, 2008, while his petition for certiorari before the CA was filed on December 12, 2008, more than 60 days thereafter. His certiorari petition should have been dismissed outright for having been filed out of time.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Grave abuse of discretion connotes judgment exercised in a capricious and whimsical manner that is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. To be considered "grave," the discretionary authority must be exercised in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law. The Court applied this standard and found that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Ortiz's appeal for procedural infractions.
• Mandatory Timely Filing of Motion for Reconsideration — The seasonable filing of a motion for reconsideration within the 10-day reglementary period following receipt of any order, resolution, or decision of the NLRC is a mandatory requirement to forestall the finality of such order, resolution, or decision. The statutory base is Article 223 of the Labor Code and Section 14, Rule VII of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. Ortiz's failure to timely file his motion for reconsideration rendered the NLRC's March 24, 2008 Resolution final and executory.
• Finality and Immutability of Judgment — A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. This quality of immutability precludes the modification of a final judgment, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. A definitive final judgment, however erroneous, is no longer subject to change or revision. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the March 24, 2008 Resolution could no longer be modified.
• Prohibited Pleading and Tolling of Certiorari Period — A second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under the NLRC Rules. As a prohibited pleading, its filing could not have tolled the running of the 60-day reglementary period for the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Ortiz's certiorari petition was therefore filed out of time.
• NLRC Procedural Rules Are Mandatory — The NLRC's procedural requirements, including the certificate of non-forum shopping for appeals and the rules on motions for reconsideration, are mandatory. Non-compliance justifies dismissal of the appeal, and the NLRC does not commit grave abuse of discretion in enforcing its own rules.

• "To justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, petitioner must satisfactorily show that the court or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused the discretion conferred upon them. Grave abuse of discretion connotes judgment exercised in a capricious and whimsical manner that is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction." — This passage states the controlling standard for certiorari and defines grave abuse of discretion, which the Court used to reject Ortiz's claim that the NLRC acted improperly.
• "Time and again, this Court has been emphatic in ruling that the seasonable filing of a motion for reconsideration within the l0-day reglementary period following the receipt by a party of any order, resolution or decision of the NLRC, is a mandatory requirementto forestall the finality of such order, resolution or decision." — This passage, quoted from Silva vs. NLRC, establishes that a timely motion for reconsideration is mandatory to prevent an NLRC resolution from becoming final and executory.
• "A definitive final judgment [– such as the NLRC’s March 24, 2008 Resolution –] however erroneous, is no longer subject to change or revision." — This passage articulates the finality and immutability of judgments, which the Court applied to hold that the March 24, 2008 Resolution could no longer be altered.
• "As a prohibited pleading, the filing of said motion could not have tolled the running of the 60-day reglementary period for the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA." — This passage explains why Ortiz's second motion for reconsideration did not suspend the period for filing a certiorari petition, rendering his CA petition out of time.

• Ramos vs. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 203186, December 4, 2013 — Cited for the definition of grave abuse of discretion, including the requirement that the abuse be capricious, whimsical, despotic, patent, and gross.
• Silva vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 110226, June 19, 1997, 274 SCRA 159 — Cited for the rule that the seasonable filing of a motion for reconsideration within the 10-day reglementary period is a mandatory requirement to forestall the finality of an NLRC order, resolution, or decision.
• Gonzales vs. Solid Cement Corporation, G.R. No. 198423, October 23, 2012, 684 SCRA 344 — Cited for the doctrine that a final judgment is immutable and unalterable, and may not be modified even to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law.

• Article 223, Labor Code — Provides that the decision of the Commission shall be final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties. The Court applied this provision to hold that the NLRC's March 24, 2008 Resolution became final after Ortiz failed to timely move for reconsideration.
• Section 4, Rule VI, NLRC Rules — Requires that an appeal be accompanied by a memorandum of appeal and a certificate of non-forum shopping with proof of service on the other party. Ortiz's failure to attach the certificate of non-forum shopping justified the NLRC's dismissal of his appeal.
• Section 15, Rule VII, NLRC Rules — Provides that a motion for reconsideration shall not be entertained except when based on palpable or patent errors, must be under oath and filed within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the decision, resolution, or order, with proof of service, and that only one such motion from the same party shall be entertained. Ortiz violated this provision by filing a late motion for reconsideration and a second motion for reconsideration.
• Section 14, Rule VII, NLRC Rules — The prior version of the rule on motions for reconsideration, cited in Silva vs. NLRC, similarly required that the motion be filed within ten (10) calendar days from receipt and that only one such motion be entertained.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs the petition for certiorari and its 60-day reglementary period. The Court held that Ortiz's prohibited second motion for reconsideration did not toll the 60-day period, making his certiorari petition before the CA out of time.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chairperson), Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, and Justice Jose Portugal Perez concurred.