The Supreme Court ruled that the date of receipt by counsel, and not the party, of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) resolution denying a motion for reconsideration, is the reckoning point for computing the period to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. This clarifies that notice to counsel is binding on the client in procedural matters, including appeals from labor disputes. The decision emphasizes adherence to procedural rules while ensuring due process is observed, impacting how legal professionals handle appeal timelines in labor cases. This ultimately affects a litigant’s opportunity to appeal labor rulings, hinging it on their counsel’s diligence in observing deadlines.

When Does the Appeal Clock Start? Counsel’s Notice vs. Party’s Receipt in Labor Disputes

This case revolves around Sanny B. Ginete’s complaint for illegal dismissal against Sunrise Manning Agency, Summer Wind Shipping Co., and Trust Carrier S.A. After the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, Ginete appealed to the NLRC, which affirmed the dismissal. Ginete then moved for reconsideration, which was denied. His counsel received the denial on June 21, 1999, while Ginete himself received it on July 22, 1999. The Court of Appeals dismissed Ginete’s subsequent petition for certiorari as it was filed beyond the prescribed period, calculated from the counsel’s receipt date. The central legal question is whether the appeal period should be counted from the date the counsel received the NLRC resolution or the date Ginete himself received it.

Ginete argued that in labor cases, both the party and counsel must receive separate copies of the decision for the period to appeal to commence, citing Article 224 of the Labor Code. He contended that counting the period from his counsel’s receipt denied him due process. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, clarifying that Article 224 pertains to the execution of final decisions, orders, or awards, not the period for filing a petition for certiorari. This distinction is crucial because it defines the scope of Article 224, limiting its application to the enforcement phase rather than the appeal process.

ART. 224: Execution of decisions, orders or awards. – (a) the Secretary of Labor and Employment or any Regional Director, the Commission or any Labor Arbiter, or med-arbiter or voluntary arbitrator may, motu proprio or on motion of any interested party, issue a writ of execution on a judgment within five (5) years from the date it becomes final and executory,.requiring a sheriff or a duly deputized officer to execute or enforce final decisions, orders or awards of the Secretary of Labor and Employment or regional Director, the Commission, the Labor Arbiter or Med-Arbiter, or Voluntary Arbitrators.  In any case, it shall be the duty of the responsible officer to separately furnish immediately the counsels of record and the parties with copies of said decisions, orders or awards. Failure to comply with the duty prescribed herein shall subject such responsible officer to appropriate administrative sanctions.  xxx xxx xxx.

The Court emphasized that the period for appealing from the NLRC to the Court of Appeals is governed by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, following the ruling in St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC. Section 4 of Rule 65 states that a petition for certiorari must be filed within sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment or resolution. Correlatively, Section 4, Rule III of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, mandates that the period for appeal is computed from the counsel’s receipt of the decision. Although this rule explicitly contemplates appeals before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, the Supreme Court saw no reason why the same rule should not apply to petitions for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals from decisions of the NLRC.

This principle aligns with the established rule that notice to counsel is notice to the party. When a party is represented by counsel, notices should be served on the counsel of record. This is based on the presumption that counsel will promptly inform the client of any relevant information. The NLRC Rules of Procedure also state that attorneys have the authority to bind their clients in all matters of procedure. This provision is similar to Section 23, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, further solidifying the principle of counsel’s authority in procedural matters. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure analogously provide that if a party has appeared by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel.

SEC. 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients. -Attorneys have authority to bind their clients in any case by any agreement in relation thereto made in writing, and in taking appeals, and in all matters of ordinary procedure. xxx xxx xxx.

Ginete’s claim of denial of due process was also dismissed. The Court noted that he had been given ample opportunity to present his case, from the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC, including a motion for reconsideration. Due process requires only that a party be given an opportunity to be heard, and this opportunity was not denied to Ginete. He simply failed to comply with the established procedure for filing a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Therefore, the petition for review was denied for lack of merit.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules in legal proceedings. While the Court recognizes the constitutional mandate to protect overseas Filipino workers, it also acknowledges the necessity of following established procedures to ensure fairness and order in the legal system. The ruling clarifies that notice to counsel is binding on the client in procedural matters, including appeals from labor disputes, emphasizing the responsibility of legal professionals to diligently observe deadlines and inform their clients accordingly. This decision provides valuable guidance for practitioners and litigants alike, highlighting the significance of timely action and adherence to procedural requirements in pursuing legal remedies.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the period for filing a petition for certiorari should be counted from the date the counsel received the NLRC resolution or the date the party himself received it.
What did the Supreme Court rule?	The Supreme Court ruled that the period for filing a petition for certiorari should be counted from the date the counsel received the NLRC resolution, as notice to counsel is notice to the party.
What is the significance of Article 224 of the Labor Code in this case?	Article 224 of the Labor Code pertains to the execution of final decisions, orders, or awards, not the period for filing a petition for certiorari, so it’s not relevant in determining the appeal period.
What rule governs the period for appealing from the NLRC to the Court of Appeals?	Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, specifically Section 4, governs the period for appealing from the NLRC to the Court of Appeals, requiring a petition for certiorari to be filed within sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment or resolution.
What is the established rule regarding notice to counsel?	The established rule is that notice to counsel is notice to the party, and when a party is represented by counsel, notices should be served on the counsel of record.
Did the petitioner claim a denial of due process?	Yes, the petitioner claimed a denial of due process, but the Supreme Court dismissed this claim, stating that he had been given ample opportunity to present his case.
What is the practical implication of this ruling for legal professionals?	Legal professionals must diligently observe deadlines and inform their clients accordingly, as notice to counsel is binding on the client in procedural matters, including appeals from labor disputes.
What was the outcome of the petition for review?	The petition for review was denied for lack of merit, upholding the Court of Appeals’ decision to dismiss the petition for certiorari.

This case reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules in legal proceedings and clarifies the principle that notice to counsel is binding on the client in matters of procedure. The decision provides valuable guidance for legal practitioners and litigants, emphasizing the significance of timely action and compliance with procedural requirements in pursuing legal remedies.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: SANNY B. GINETE vs. SUNRISE MANNING AGENCY, G.R. No. 142023, June 21, 2001