Thomasites Center for International Studies vs. Rodriguez

A petition for relief from judgment cannot be used to revive a lost appeal where the party had an available appeal and was not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence; strict compliance with the 60-day and six-month periods under Rule 38 is required. Service of summons and notices on a responsible corporate officer at the corporation’s address binds the corporation and satisfies due process.

On July 29, 2004, TCIS hired Ruth N. Rodriguez, 34, Arlyn B. Rillera, 36, and Irene P. Padrigon, 30, all graduates of the University of the Philippines and holders of teaching licenses from the Professional Regulation Commission, to develop the school’s academic programs, design its curricula, create materials for the school website, recruit American and Filipino staff, draft documents for its Technical Education and Skills Development Authority accreditation, help supervise construction of the school building in the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, and draft its rules and regulations and student and faculty handbooks. Dr. Jae Won Park and Dr. Cheol Je Cho, Korean nationals and TCIS’s President and Academic Dean, respectively, hired them. The parties executed no written contracts, but the respondents were promised a monthly salary of P25,000.00 plus shares of stock.

Classes opened on December 20, 2004 at the Crown Peak Hotel in Subic Bay, and disagreements soon arose between the respondents and the American teachers on the question of salaries. At a meeting called by Dr. Cho on January 7, 2005, the American teachers threatened to resign unless the respondents were terminated. That same afternoon, the respondents were served with letters of termination effective January 8, 2005, signed by Dr. Cho, citing the restructuring of the company and the consequent evaluation of its staffing requirements.

On January 24, 2005, Rodriguez and Rillera filed NLRC Case No. RAB-III-01-8376-05, while Padrigon filed NLRC Case No. RAB-III-01-8401-05, both for illegal dismissal and money claims against TCIS and Dr. Cho. Summons were served by registry through Dr. Cho, giving TCIS and Dr. Cho 10 days from receipt to file their position paper. They did not file a position paper, but they were represented by counsel at the hearings held on February 15, 2005, March 15, 2005, and April 19, 2005.

On May 8, 2006, the LA rendered a Decision finding that the respondents were illegally dismissed and directing TCIS and Dr. Cho to reinstate them with full backwages in the total amount of P1,125,000.00, plus 10% as attorney’s fees. Dr. Cho received a copy of the decision on June 21, 2006. On August 11, 2006, the complainants moved for issuance of a writ of execution. At the September 22, 2006 pre-execution conference, Atty. Joy P. Bayona entered her appearance as counsel for TCIS and Dr. Cho. Conferences were held on October 2, 2006, October 23, 2006, November 24, 2006, and December 15, 2006. At the hearing on December 18, 2006, the law firm of Andres Marcelo Pedernal Guerrero and Paras entered its appearance as counsel for TCIS and filed a petition for relief from judgment. On January 30, 2007, the LA directed the issuance of a writ of execution, which was served on TCIS’s counsel on February 8, 2007; the LA merely noted the petition for relief due to wrong venue and lack of jurisdiction and because it was a prohibited pleading.

On February 19, 2007, TCIS re-filed its petition for relief, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, before the NLRC. TCIS claimed that the LA did not acquire jurisdiction over it because the summons and notices were addressed to Dr. Cho, who did not represent TCIS; that Atty. Bayona’s entry of appearance at the pre-execution conference was signed only by Dr. Cho in his capacity as respondent and academic dean of TCIS; that TCIS did not receive any notice of the proceedings; and that, although the NLRC is not bound by technical rules of procedure, its right to due process was violated because it was deprived of the right to file its position paper. TCIS further argued that it faced a shut-down and would suffer irreparable damage unless execution was enjoined, although it expressed willingness to post a bond to guarantee payment of whatever damages may be awarded by the NLRC.

• Procedural Rigidity: TCIS argued that the dismissal of its certiorari was based solely on rigid technical requirements and that procedural rules should not frustrate a just resolution of the case.
• Invalid Service of Summons and Due Process: TCIS argued that the LA did not acquire jurisdiction over it because the summons and notices were addressed to Dr. Cho, who did not represent TCIS; that Atty. Bayona’s entry of appearance was signed only by Dr. Cho as respondent and academic dean; that TCIS received no notice of the proceedings; and that its right to due process was violated because it was deprived of the right to file a position paper.
• Illegal Dismissal: TCIS argued that the respondents were mere probationary employees and were validly dismissed for failing to qualify as regular employees.
• Irreparable Damage and Bond: TCIS argued that it faced a shut-down and would suffer irreparable damage unless execution was enjoined, although it was willing to post a bond to guarantee payment of whatever damages may be awarded by the NLRC.

• Relief from Judgment: Whether TCIS’s petition for relief from judgment was the proper remedy and filed within the periods prescribed by Rule 38.
• Service of Summons and Due Process: Whether service of summons and notices on Dr. Cho, TCIS’s academic dean, validly bound TCIS and satisfied due process.

• Relief from Judgment: No. A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy available only when there is no other adequate remedy; TCIS had an appeal but lost it through negligence, and its petition was filed beyond the 60-day period and lacked the required affidavit.
• Service of Summons and Due Process: Yes. Service on Dr. Cho, a responsible officer at TCIS’s address, bound TCIS, and TCIS was afforded every opportunity to be heard through counsel at the hearings.

• Relief from Judgment: Under Philippine Amanah Bank vs. Contreras and Tuason vs. CA, relief from judgment is an equitable remedy allowed only in exceptional cases when there is no other available or adequate remedy. If a party has a motion for new trial or appeal and was not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence from filing it, the party cannot avail of relief from judgment; otherwise, the petition would revive an appeal lost through inexcusable negligence. TCIS had an appeal but lost it through negligence, and the SC agreed with the CA that no fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence prevented TCIS from appealing. The NLRC also noted that the petition lacked the requisite affidavit showing such grounds and the facts constituting a good and substantial cause of action. Section 3, Rule 38 requires strict compliance with two periods: 60 days from knowledge of the judgment and six months from entry. The earliest TCIS could have learned of the LA judgment was June 21, 2006, when Dr. Cho received a copy, and the latest was September 22, 2006, when Atty. Bayona formally entered her appearance for TCIS and Dr. Cho at the pre-execution conference. The SC noted that TCIS’s petition was filed on February 13, 2007, well beyond the 60-day period. The petition for relief was therefore improper.
• Service of Summons and Due Process: The service of summons and notices to Dr. Cho was valid and binding on TCIS because they were sent to him at TCIS’s address and Dr. Cho was a responsible officer of TCIS. Dr. Cho was TCIS’s academic dean who hired the respondents and signed their termination letters. TCIS’s counsel attended the hearings on February 15, 2005, March 15, 2005, and April 19, 2005, which showed that TCIS was duly notified of the proceedings. The SC thus found that TCIS was afforded every opportunity to be heard and that its due process claim failed.

• Petition for relief from judgment — An equitable remedy allowed only in exceptional cases when there is no other available or adequate remedy. It cannot be used to revive a lost appeal where the loss was due to inexcusable negligence, and it must comply with Rule 38’s 60-day and six-month periods and the affidavit requirement. The SC applied this to deny TCIS relief because it had an appeal but lost it through negligence, filed beyond 60 days, and lacked the required affidavit.
• Service of summons and notices on a corporation — Service on a responsible corporate officer at the corporation’s address binds the corporation. The SC applied this to Dr. Cho, TCIS’s academic dean, who hired the respondents and signed their termination letters, making service on him valid and binding on TCIS.
• Due process in labor proceedings — Due process requires an opportunity to be heard. TCIS’s counsel attended the 2005 hearings, and the SC found TCIS was afforded every opportunity to be heard.
• Finality of judgments — Rule 38’s periods protect the finality of judgments; strict compliance is required because relief from judgment is a final act of liberality by the State. The SC applied this in holding TCIS’s petition time-barred.

• "Relief from judgment is a remedy provided by law to any person against whom a decision or order is entered through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. It is a remedy, equitable in character, that is allowed only in exceptional cases when there is no other available or adequate remedy. When a party has another remedy available to him, which may either be a motion for new trial or appeal from an adverse decision of the trial court, and he was not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence from filing such motion or taking such appeal, he cannot avail of the remedy of petition for relief." — The SC quoted this in denying TCIS relief from judgment because TCIS had an appeal but lost it through negligence.
• "The service of summons and notices of proceedings to Dr. Cho was perfectly valid and binding upon TCIS since they were sent to him at its address, and Dr. Cho is a responsible officer of TCIS." — The SC rejected TCIS’s claim that the LA never acquired jurisdiction over it.
• "TCIS was afforded every opportunity to be heard." — The SC found no due process violation, noting that TCIS’s counsel attended the hearings.

• Philippine Amanah Bank (now Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines, also known as Islamic Bank) vs. Contreras, G.R. No. 173168, September 29, 2014, 736 SCRA 567 — Quoted and applied for the rule that relief from judgment is available only when there is no other adequate remedy and the party was not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
• Tuason vs. CA, 326 Phil. 169 (1996) — Quoted for the nature of a petition for relief from judgment and the rule that it cannot revive a lost appeal due to inexcusable negligence.
• Lvnx Industries Contractor Inc. vs. Tala, 557 Phil. 711 (2007) — Cited for strict compliance with the 60-day and six-month periods under Rule 38.

• Section 3, Rule 38, Rules of Court — Requires a petition for relief from judgment to be filed within 60 days from knowledge of the judgment and within six months from entry; strict compliance is required. TCIS filed beyond the 60-day period.
• Rule 38, Rules of Court — Requires the petition to be accompanied by an affidavit showing fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence and the facts constituting a good and substantial cause of action. TCIS’s petition lacked this affidavit.