Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 65 views

    Building Care Corp Vs MAcaraeg

    Uploaded by

    Ju Lan
    Petitioners employed respondent as a security guard but later relieved her of her post and did not provide her with another assignment for over nine months. Respondent filed a complaint claiming illegal dismissal. The NLRC dismissed the case for lack of merit. The CA reversed the NLRC decision and found respondent was illegally dismissed. However, the Supreme Court ruled the CA erred in reversing the NLRC decision. It found the respondent's appeal to the CA was filed out of time, making the NLRC decision final. The Court will not override the finality of a judgment just because a party's counsel was negligent in timely filing appeals without also showing the negligence deprived the party of due process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Building Care Corp Vs MAcaraeg

    Uploaded by

    Ju Lan
    65 views2 pages
    Petitioners employed respondent as a security guard but later relieved her of her post and did not provide her with another assignment for over nine months. Respondent filed a complaint claiming illegal dismissal. The NLRC dismissed the case for lack of merit. The CA reversed the NLRC decision and found respondent was illegally dismissed. However, the Supreme Court ruled the CA erred in reversing the NLRC decision. It found the respondent's appeal to the CA was filed out of time, making the NLRC decision final. The Court will not override the finality of a judgment just because a party's counsel was negligent in timely filing appeals without also showing the negligence deprived the party of due process.

    Original Description:

    consti 2

    Original Title

    2. Building Care Corp vs MAcaraeg

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioners employed respondent as a security guard but later relieved her of her post and did not provide her with another assignment for over nine months. Respondent filed a complaint claiming illegal dismissal. The NLRC dismissed the case for lack of merit. The CA reversed the NLRC decision and found respondent was illegally dismissed. However, the Supreme Court ruled the CA erred in reversing the NLRC decision. It found the respondent's appeal to the CA was filed out of time, making the NLRC decision final. The Court will not override the finality of a judgment just because a party's counsel was negligent in timely filing appeals without also showing the negligence deprived the party of due process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    65 views2 pages

    Building Care Corp Vs MAcaraeg

    Uploaded by

    Ju Lan
    Petitioners employed respondent as a security guard but later relieved her of her post and did not provide her with another assignment for over nine months. Respondent filed a complaint claiming illegal dismissal. The NLRC dismissed the case for lack of merit. The CA reversed the NLRC decision and found respondent was illegally dismissed. However, the Supreme Court ruled the CA erred in reversing the NLRC decision. It found the respondent's appeal to the CA was filed out of time, making the NLRC decision final. The Court will not override the finality of a judgment just because a party's counsel was negligent in timely filing appeals without also showing the negligence deprived the party of due process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Building Care Corp vs.

    Myrna Macaraeg
    GR. 198357
    December 10, 2012
    Facts:
    Petitioners are in the business of providing security services to their clients.
    They hired respondent as a security guard beginning August 25, 1996, assigning her
    at Genato Building in Caloocan City. However, on March 9, 2008, respondent was
    relieved of her post. She was re-assigned to Bayview Park Hotel from March 9-13,
    2008, but after said period, she was allegedly no longer given any assignment.
    Thus, on September 9, 2008, respondent filed a complaint against petitioners for
    illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries, non-payment of separation pay and
    refund of cash bond. Respondent claimed that petitioners failed to give her an
    assignment for more than nine months, amounting to constructive dismissal. On the
    other hand, petitioners alleged in their position paper that respondent was relieved
    from her post as requested by the client because of her habitual tardiness,
    persistent borrowing of money from employees and tenants of the client, and
    sleeping on the job. Respondent then filed an administrative complaint for illegal
    dismissal with the PNP-Security Agencies and Guard Supervision Division on June
    18, 2008, but she did not attend the conference hearings for said case. Petitioners
    brought to the conference hearings a new assignment order detailing respondent at
    the Ateneo de Manila University but, due to her absence, petitioners failed to
    personally serve respondent said assignment order. LA dismissed the case for lack
    of merit. Respondent filed a notice of appeal but it was dismissed for having been
    filed out of time. CA however reversed the NLRC decision and declared respondent
    to have been illegally dismissed
    .
    Issue: Did CA err in reversing the NLRC decision?
    Held:
    Yes. While procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest of justice, it is wellsettled that these are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. The
    relaxation of procedural rules in the interest of justice was never intended to be a
    license for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The right to appeal is
    not a natural right or part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege and may
    be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Thus,
    one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must strictly comply with the
    requirements of the rules, and failure to do so leads to the loss of the right to
    appeal."18
    Clearly, allowing an appeal, even if belatedly filed, should never be taken
    lightly.1wphi1 The judgment attains finality by the lapse of the period for taking an
    appeal without such appeal or motion for reconsideration being filed. 21 When the
    Labor Arbiter's Decision became final, petitioners attained a vested right to said
    judgment. They had the right to fully rely on the immutability of said Decision. The
    Court will not override the finality and immutability of a judgment based only on the
    negligence of a partys counsel in timely taking all the proper recourses from the

    judgment. To justify an override, the counsels negligence must not only be gross
    but must also be shown to have deprived the party the right to due process.

    You might also like