7/20/23, 10:03 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634

G.R. No. 187984. November 15, 2010.*

FRANCISCO A. LABAO, petitioner, vs. LOLITO N. FLORES,

AMADO A. DAGUISONAN, PEPE M. CANTAR, JULIO G.
PAGENTE, JESUS E. ARENA, CRISPIN A. NAVALES, OSCAR
M. VENTE, ARTEMIO B. ARAGON, ARNOLD M. CANTAR,
ALBERTO T. CUADERO, RASMI E. RONQUILLO, PEDRO R.
GABUTAN, ELPEDIO E. MENTANG,** WILFREDO R.
MIÑOSA,** RODERICK P. NAMBATAC, MARCIAL D.
RIVERA, SANDE E. CASTIL,**** CRISOSTOMO B. ESIC, and
AMBROSIO M. CANTAR,***** respondents.

Certiorari; Pleadings and Practice; Speedy Disposition of Cases; The

60-day period within which to institute a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 is inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the
constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case.—Under
Section 4 of Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, certiorari should
be instituted within a period of 60 days from notice of the judgment, order,
or resolution sought to be assailed. The 60-day period is inextendible to
avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of
parties to a speedy disposition of their case. Time and again, we have
stressed that procedural rules do not exist for the convenience of the
litigants; the rules were established primarily to provide order to, and
enhance the efficiency of, our judicial system. While procedural rules are
liberally construed, the provisions on reglementary periods are strictly
applied, indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays, and
are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. The
timeliness of filing a pleading is a jurisdictional caveat that even this Court
cannot trifle with.

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

** Known as “Elpedito Mentang” in other parts of the record.

*** Known as “Wilfredo R. Miñoza” in other parts of the record.

**** Known as “Sandy A. Castil” in other parts of the record.

***** Known as “Ambrocio M. Cantar, Jr.” and “Ambrosio M. Cantar, Jr.” in other parts
of the record.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000189710acddb67e06b72000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/12
7/20/23, 10:03 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634

724

724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Labao vs. Flores

Same; Same; Procedural Rules and Technicalities; Procedural rules

are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance
may have prejudiced a party’s substantive rights—like all rules, they are
required to be followed; Exceptions.—Viewed in this light, procedural rules
are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance
may have prejudiced a party’s substantive rights; like all rules, they are
required to be followed. However, there are recognized exceptions to their
strict observance, such as: (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to
relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to
comply with the prescribed procedure; (3) good faith of the defaulting party
by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the
default; (4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (5) the
merits of the case; (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or
negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (7) a lack of
any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) the
other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident,
mistake or excusable negligence without appellant’s fault; (10) peculiar
legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case; (11) in the name of
substantial justice and fair play; (12) importance of the issues involved; and
(13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant
circumstances. Thus, there should be an effort on the part of the party
invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for
his/her failure to comply with the rules.
Judgments; Attorneys; Notice sent to counsel of record is binding upon
the client, and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an adverse
judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for
setting aside a judgment valid and regular on its face.—The general rule is
that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of his counsel in the realm
of procedural technique. The exception to this rule is when the negligence of
counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of
his day in court. The failure of a party’s counsel to notify him on time of the
adverse judgment, to enable him to appeal therefrom, is negligence that is
not excusable. We have repeatedly held that notice sent to counsel of
record is binding upon the client, and the neglect or failure of counsel to
inform him of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of his right to
appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment valid and regular on
its face.

725

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000189710acddb67e06b72000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/12
7/20/23, 10:03 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634

VOL. 634, NOVEMBER 15, 2010 725

Labao vs. Flores

Same; Immutability of Final Judgments; A decision that has acquired

finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified
in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that
rendered it or by the highest court of the land.—Needless to stress, a
decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and
may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant
to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made
by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. All the issues
between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest once a judgment
becomes final and executory; execution of the decision proceeds as a matter
of right as vested rights are acquired by the winning party. Just as a losing
party has the right to appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party
has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision on the case.
After all, a denial of a petition for being time-barred is tantamount to a
decision on the merits. Otherwise, there will be no end to litigation, and this
will set to naught the main role of courts of justice to assist in the
enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by
settling justiciable controversies with finality.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Romero A. Boniel for petitioner.
Edgardo Prospero for respondents.

BRION, J.:
We resolve the petition for review on certiorari1 filed by
petitioner Francisco A. Labao (petitioner) to challenge the deci-

_______________

1 Pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; Rollo, pp. 74-95.

726

726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Labao vs. Flores

sion2 and resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP

No. 01472-MIN.4

The Factual Antecedents

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000189710acddb67e06b72000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/12
7/20/23, 10:03 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634

The facts of the case, gathered from the records, are briefly
summarized below.
The petitioner is the proprietor and general manager of the San
Miguel Protective Security Agency (SMPSA), a licensed security-
service contractor. Respondents Lolito N. Flores, Amado A.
Daguisonan, Pepe M. Cantar, Julio G. Pagente, Jesus E. Arena,
Crispin A. Navales, Oscar M. Vente, Artemio B. Aragon, Arnold M.
Cantar, Alberto T. Cuadero, Rasmi E. Ronquillo, Pedro R. Gabutan,
Elpedio E. Mentang, Wilfredo R. Miñosa, Roderick P. Nambatac,
Marcial D. Rivera, Sande E. Castil, Crisostomo B. Esic, Ambrosio
M. Cantar (respondents) and Jimmy O. Bicoy, were SMPSA security
guards assigned to the National Power Corporation, Mindanao
Regional Center (NPC-MRC), Ditucalan, Iligan City. Each of the
respondents had a monthly salary of P7,020.00.
On July 27, 2004, the petitioner issued a memorandum requiring
all security guards to submit their updated personal data files,
security guard professional license, and other pertinent documents
by July 30, 2004 for reevaluation in connection with the SMPSA’s
new service contract with the NPC-MRC. 5

_______________

2 Dated September 5, 2008; penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion,

with the concurrence of Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Edgardo T.
Lloren; id., at pp. 100-123.
3 Dated April 22, 2009; id., at pp. 154-158.
4 Entitled “Jimmy O. Bicoy, et al. v. San Miguel Protective Security Agency
and/or Francisco A. Labao; Lolito N. Flores, et al. v. SMPSA and/or Francisco A.
Labao; Pedro Gabutan, et al. v. SMPSA and/or Francisco A. Labao.”
5 Rollo, p. 211.

727

VOL. 634, NOVEMBER 15, 2010 727

Labao vs. Flores

When respondents failed to comply with the petitioner’s

directive, despite several notices to do so, the petitioner relieved
them from NPC-MRC duty starting September and October 2004,
and ordered them to report to the Senior Operations Officer,
Nemesio Sombilon, for new assignments.
Sometime in March and April 2005, the respondents filed
individual complaints with the Iligan City Sub-Regional Arbitration
Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for
illegal dismissal and money claims, claiming they were
constructively dismissed when they were not given new assignments
for a period of over 6 months, despite repeated requests for NPC-

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000189710acddb67e06b72000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/12
7/20/23, 10:03 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634

MRC redeployment and for new assignments. The complaints were

consolidated.
The petitioner and SMPSA denied the charge of constructive
dismissal. They countered that the respondents’ relief from NPC-
MRC duty was a valid exercise of its management prerogative.
Furthermore, they issued a notice (dated January 17, 2005)6
directing the respondents to report to SMPSA’s main office for new
assignments, but the latter failed or refused to comply without any
valid reasons.

The Labor Arbiter Ruling

In a December 27, 2005 decision, Labor Arbiter (LA) Noel

Augusto S. Magbanua dismissed the consolidated complaints for
lack of merit. He held that the respondents’ relief from NPC-MRC
duty was due to their failure to comply with SMSPA’s requirement
for its employees to submit updated documents to meet NPC-MRC
contract renewal requirements. According to the LA, this was a
legitimate exercise of NPC-MRC’s management prerogative, in light
of the information it received that some security guards carried
falsified documents.7

_______________

6 Id., at pp. 266-284.

7 Id., at pp. 289-294.

728

728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Labao vs. Flores

The respondents appealed the dismissal of their complaints to the

NLRC.

The NLRC Ruling

In a July 31, 2006 resolution, the NLRC affirmed the LA

decision. It noted that the respondents’ relief was in good faith,
without grave abuse of discretion, and in the best interest of the
business enterprise since SMPSA merely exercised its management
prerogative and discretion to protect its business interest.8
It also noted that the respondents’ temporary off-detail did not
exceed the 6-month period permitted by law, since the respondents
were directed, through the January 17, 2005 notice, to report for a
new assignment on January 25, 2005, but they failed or refused to do
so.
In a September 29, 2006 resolution, the NLRC denied the
respondents’ subsequent motion for reconsideration.9 The
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000189710acddb67e06b72000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/12
7/20/23, 10:03 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634

respondents’ counsel, Atty. Demosthenes R. Plando, received the

September 29, 2006 resolution on October 13, 2006.
Eighty-eight (88) days later, or on January 9, 2007, the
respondents, through their new counsel, filed with the CA a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, alleging that they
were informed of the September 29, 2006 resolution on December
6, 2006, while Bicoy received a copy of the resolution on
November 6, 2006.

The CA Ruling

In its September 5, 2008 decision, the CA set aside the NLRC

resolution, finding that the respondents were constructively
dismissed when they were not given new assignments for more than
6 months, from September and October 2004, when the respondents
were “off-detailed,” until March and

_______________

8 Id., at pp. 319-326.

9 Id., at pp. 340-342.

729

VOL. 634, NOVEMBER 15, 2010 729

Labao vs. Flores

April 2005, when they filed their individual complaints for illegal
dismissal. The appellate court noted that the January 17, 2005 notice
to report for new assignments did not toll the 6-month “floating
status” period since the respondents failed to receive the notice
before the appointed date, as SMPSA sent the notice by registered
mail, which normally takes at least 5 working days to reach the
intended recipients.10
Finding that reinstatement was no longer viable under the
circumstances, the CA awarded the respondents separation pay at
one (1) month’s salary for every year of service, plus full
backwages, allowances and other statutory benefits under the law.
The petitioner and SMPSA moved for reconsideration, arguing
that the CA should have dismissed the petition outright for late
filing, and that there was no compelling reason for the reversal of the
LA and the NLRC’s factual findings.11
In its April 22, 2009 resolution, the CA modified its September 5,
2008 decision by dismissing Bicoy’s petition for having been filed
out of time. However, it considered the respondents’ petition as
timely filed. It also opined that disregarding any procedural lapses
best served substantial justice.12

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000189710acddb67e06b72000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/12
7/20/23, 10:03 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634

The petitioner then filed the present petition. Bicoy, with

respondents Castil, Esic, and Ambrocio M. Cantar filed a separate
appeal, docketed as G.R. No. 190848. The Court denied this appeal
in its April 5, 2010 resolution for late filing and for non-compliance
with Rules 45 and 46 of the Rules of Court.

_______________

10 Supra note 2.
11 Id., at pp. 124-145.
12 Supra note 3.

730

730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Labao vs. Flores

The Petition
The petitioner argues that: (a) the respondents’ CA petition for
certiorari was filed 28 days late; (b) the respondents’ new counsel
concealed Atty. Plando’s October 13, 2006 receipt of the September
26, 2006 resolution and relied on the respondents’ December 6, 2006
notice of the resolution; and (c) the evidence on record supports the
LA and NLRC decisions.

The Case for the Respondents

In contrast, the respondents submit that: (a) December 6, 2006 is

the reckoning date of the 60-day period; (b) Atty. Plando’s October
13, 2006 receipt did not bind them because his secretary, Sonia M.
Barnachea, misplaced the September 29, 2006 resolution and they
should not suffer for her negligence; and (c) the evidence on record
does not support the LA and NLRC rulings.

Issue

The core issues boil down to whether the CA erred in acting on

the respondents’ petition despite its late filing, and in reversing the
LA and NLRC decisions.

The Court’s Ruling

We find the petition meritorious.

Timeliness of the CA petition for certiorari
Under Section 4 of Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure,13 certiorari should be instituted within a period of 60

_______________

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000189710acddb67e06b72000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/12
7/20/23, 10:03 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634

13 SEC. 4. Where petition filed.—The petition may be filed not later than sixty
(60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed in the
Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a
corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising
jurisdiction

731

VOL. 634, NOVEMBER 15, 2010 731

Labao vs. Flores

days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be

assailed.14 The 60-day period is inextendible to avoid any
unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of
parties to a speedy disposition of their case.15
Time and again, we have stressed that procedural rules do not
exist for the convenience of the litigants; the rules were established
primarily to provide order to, and enhance the efficiency of, our
judicial system.16 While procedural rules are liberally construed, the
provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied,
indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays, and
are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial
business.17 The timeliness of filing

_______________

over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the
Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in
the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions
of a quasi-judicial agency, and unless otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the
petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.

14 Philemploy Services and Resources, Inc. v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 152616, March
31, 2006, 486 SCRA 302, 324, citing Abbott Laboratories Phils., Inc. v. Abbott
Laboratories Employees Union, 380 Phil. 364; 328 SCRA 392 (2000), and St. Martin
Funeral Home v. National Labor Relations Commission, 356 Phil. 811; 295 SCRA
494 (1998).
15 Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 185220, July 27,
2009, 594 SCRA 139, 143, citing De Los Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
147912, April 26, 2006, 488 SCRA 351; Yutingco v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 83,
91; 386 SCRA 85, 92 (2002).
16 Mejillano v. Lucillo, G.R. No. 154717, June 19, 2009, 590 SCRA 1, 9; Ko v.
Philippine National Bank, G.R. Nos. 169131-32, January 20, 2006, 479 SCRA 298,
303.
17 Villa v. Heirs of Enrique Altavas, G.R. No. 162028, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA
157, 166; Moneytrend Lending Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No 165580,
February 20, 2006, 482 SCRA 705, 714. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, 480

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000189710acddb67e06b72000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/12
7/20/23, 10:03 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634

732

732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Labao vs. Flores

a pleading is a jurisdictional caveat that even this Court cannot trifle

with.18
Viewed in this light, procedural rules are not to be belittled or
dismissed simply because their non-observance may have prejudiced
a party’s substantive rights; like all rules, they are required to be
followed.
However, there are recognized exceptions to their strict
observance, such as: (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to
relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure
to comply with the prescribed procedure; (3) good faith of the
defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time
from the time of the default; (4) the existence of special or
compelling circumstances; (5) the merits of the case; (6) a cause not
entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by
the suspension of the rules; (7) a lack of any showing that the review
sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) the other party will not
be unjustly prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence without appellant’s fault; (10) peculiar legal
and equitable circumstances attendant to each case; (11) in the name
of substantial justice and fair play; (12) importance of the issues
involved; and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided
by all the attendant circumstances.19 Thus, there should be an effort
on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable
or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the
rules.

_______________

Phil. 134; 436 SCRA 478 (2004); FJR Garments Industries v. Court of Appeals,
130 SCRA 216, 218 (1984).
18 National Power Corporation v. Laohoo, G.R. No. 151973, July 23, 2009, 593
SCRA 564, 579-580; Bank of America, NT & SA v. Gerochi, Jr., G.R. No. 73210,
February 10, 1994, 230 SCRA 9, 15.
19 Lim v. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 172574, July 31, 2009, 594 SCRA 607, 616-617;
Villena v. Rupisan, G.R. No. 167620, April 3, 2007, 520 SCRA 346, 358-359.

733

VOL. 634, NOVEMBER 15, 2010 733

Labao vs. Flores

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000189710acddb67e06b72000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/12
7/20/23, 10:03 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634

Negligence of former counsel binds the respondents

In the present case, the respondents’ petition for certiorari was
filed twenty-eight (28) days late from Atty. Plando’s October 13,
2006 receipt of the September 29, 2006 resolution. The respondents
insist that they should not suffer for Atty. Plando’s negligence in
failing to inform them of the September 29, 2006 resolution, and the
reckoning date for the 60-day period should be their December 6,
2006 notice.
The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even
mistakes, of his counsel in the realm of procedural technique.20 The
exception to this rule is when the negligence of counsel is so gross,
reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in
court.21 The failure of a party’s counsel to notify him on time of the
adverse judgment, to enable him to appeal therefrom, is negligence
that is not excusable. We have repeatedly held that notice sent to
counsel of record is binding upon the client, and the neglect or
failure of counsel to inform him of an adverse judgment
resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for
setting aside a judgment valid and regular on its face.22
We cannot sustain the respondents’ argument that they cannot be
bound by Atty. Plando’s negligence since this would

_______________

20 Philux, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 151854,

September 3, 2008, 564 SCRA 21, 33; Producers Bank of the Phils. v. Court of
Appeals, 430 Phil. 812, 830; 381 SCRA 185, 192 (2002).
21 Ibid.
22 Rivera v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157040, February 12, 2008, 544 SCRA
434, 451-452; Manaya v. Alabang Country Club Incorporated, G.R. No. 168988,
June 19, 2007, 525 SCRA 140; Trust International Paper Corporation v. Pelaez, G.R.
No. 164871, August 22, 2006, 499 SCRA 552, 561-562; Azucena v. Foreign
Manpower Services, 484 Phil. 316, 327; 441 SCRA 346, 355 (2004); Mercury Drug
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 390 Phil. 902, 913-914; 335 SCRA 567, 577(2000).

734

734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Labao vs. Flores

set a dangerous precedent. It would enable every party-litigant to

render inoperative any adverse order or decision of the courts or
tribunals, through the simple expedient of alleging his/her counsel’s
gross negligence.
We thus find that the CA erred in acting on the respondents’
petition for certiorari despite its late filing. The NLRC resolution
was already final and executory, and the CA had no jurisdiction to
entertain the petition, except to order its dismissal.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000189710acddb67e06b72000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/12
7/20/23, 10:03 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634

Immutability of NLRC resolution

The NLRC’s resolution became final ten (10) days after counsel’s
receipt, and the respondents’ failure to file the petition within the
required (60)-day period rendered it impervious to any attack
through a Rule 65 petition for certiorari. Thus, no court can
exercise jurisdiction to review the resolution.23
Needless to stress, a decision that has acquired finality becomes
immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any
respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court
that rendered it or by the highest court of the land.24 All the issues
between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest once a
judgment becomes final and executory; execution of the decision
proceeds as a matter of right as vested rights are acquired by the
winning party.25 Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within

_______________

23 Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank v. Court of Appeals, 391 Phil. 145,
153; 336 SCRA 258, 265 (2000).
24 Peña v. Government Service Insurance System, G.R No. 159520, September 19,
2006, 502 SCRA 383, 404.
25 Rules of Court, Rule 39, Sec. 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders.—
Execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that
disposes of the action or proceed-

735

VOL. 634, NOVEMBER 15, 2010 735

Labao vs. Flores

the prescribed period, the winning party has the correlative right to
enjoy the finality of the decision on the case.26 After all, a denial of a
petition for being time-barred is tantamount to a decision on the
merits.27 Otherwise, there will be no end to litigation, and this will
set to naught the main role of courts of justice to assist in the
enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and
order by settling justiciable controversies with finality.28
WHEREFORE, the present petition is GRANTED. The assailed
decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
01472-MIN are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the
Labor Arbiter is REINSTATED. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio-Morales, Bersamin, Villarama, Jr. and Sereno, JJ.,

concur.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000189710acddb67e06b72000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/12
7/20/23, 10:03 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and set aside.

Note.—The rule that negligence of counsel binds the client may

be relaxed where adherence thereto would result in outright
deprivation of the client’s liberty or property, or where the interests
of justice so require. (Rutaquio vs. Court of Appeals, 569 SCRA 312
[2008])
——o0o——

_______________

ings upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly
perfected. x x x

26 Bello v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 146212, September 5,

2007, 532 SCRA 234, 242.
27 National Power Corporation v. Laohoo, supra note 18, at p. 590; Videogram
Regulatory Board v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106564, November 28, 1996, 265
SCRA 50, 56.
28 Estinozo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150276, February 12, 2008, 544 SCRA
422, 432.

© Copyright 2023 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000189710acddb67e06b72000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/12