J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0008: SILVERTEX WEAVING CORPORATION/ARMANDO ARCENAL/ROBERT ONG VS. TEODORA F. CAMPO (G.R. NO. 21141, 16 MARCH 2016, REYES J.)

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 13, 2013 and Resolution dated February 12, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 124881 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the interest of six percent ( 6%) per annum of the total monetary award is to be computed from the date of finality of this Resolution, until full payment.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

IN THIS CASE A WAIVER AND QUITCLAIM WAS FOUND FALSIFIED. BUT ASSUMING THERE WAS A WAIVER AND QUITCLAIM DULY EXECUTED CAN THERE STILL BE AN ILLEGAL DISMISSAL?

YES. EXECUTION OF FINAL SETTLEMENT DOES NOT FORECLOSE AN EMPLOYEE’S RIGHT TO PURSUE A CLAIM FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL.

“Even granting that such document was actually executed by the respondent, its execution was not fatal to the respondent’s case for illegal dismissal. The finding of illegal dismissal could still stand, as jurisprudence provides that “[a ]n employee’s execution of a final settlement and receipt of amounts agreed upon do not foreclose his right to pursue a claim for illegal dismissal. “2”

CA GRANTED INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% PER ANNUM TO BE COMPUTED FROM DATE OF DISMISSAL. IS THIS CORRECT?

NO. THE 6% SHALL BE COMPUTED FROM DATE THE RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT BECOMES FINAL AND EXECUTORY UNTIL FULL SATISFACTION.

“CA ruled that it should be at the rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum, to be computed from the date of dismissal on November 21, 2010 until full payment. To conform with prevailing jurisprudence, interest on the monetary awards shall only be computed from the date this Resolution becomes final and executory, until full satisfaction.29”

WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF THE RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THIS CASE?

“Clearly then, given the vehement claim of the respondent that her signature on the resignation letter was a mere forgery, the evidence presented by the petitSUSSSioners to establish their defense of voluntary resignation failed to suffice.  Several other indicators cast doubt on the letter’s authenticity, as the NLRC itself cited in its Resolution dated November 29, 2011 that:  

As shown on records, the [respondent’s] original and genuine signature appeared for several times in her documents, evidence and pleadings x x x.  The signatures of the [respondent] therein manifest a similar stroke with an upper loop, downslide on the letter “t”, letters “c” and “a” not distinct from each other, downslide on the letter “p” and an upward loop on the letter “o”.  By a careful examination, the said signatures are far and different from the alleged [respondent’s] signatures on the “resignation letter, Waiver, Release and Quitclaims Statement and payslips” x x x presented by the [petitioners].  In the resignation letter in particular x x x, the letter “t” does not have an upper loop.  Also in the said documents x x x the letters “c” and “a” are distinct from each other, and the letter “p” x x x contains an outside downward loop which obviously differ from the original signature of the [respondent].  On the same tack, the [respondent] specifically denied under oath the genuineness of her signatures in the [petitioners’] documents as well as [their] truthfulness x x x.27 

The  foregoing  observations  of  the  NLRC  appeared  consistent  with  the PNP  Crime  Laboratory’s  report  that  the  signature  on  the  resignation letter  did  not  match  the  several  other  documents  supposedly  executed by  the  respondent.                                                               25  Id. at 219. 26  Id. 27 

The authenticity and due execution of the undated Waiver, Release and Quitclaims Statement purportedly signed by the respondent was also not sufficiently established. The QDR was not conclusive on the issue of its genuineness. Even granting that such document was actually executed by the respondent, its execution was not fatal to the respondent’s case for illegal dismissal. The finding of illegal dismissal could still stand, as jurisprudence provides that “[a ]n employee’s execution of a final settlement and receipt of amounts agreed upon do not foreclose his right to pursue a claim for illegal dismissal. “28

All told, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the CA’s finding that the respondent was illegally dismissed and thus entitled to reinstatement and monetary awards plus interest. The reckoning date for the computation of the awarded interest, however, needs to be modified after the CA ruled that it should be at the rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum, to be computed from the date of dismissal on November 21, 2010 until full payment. To conform with prevailing jurisprudence, interest on the monetary awards shall only be computed from the date this Resolution becomes final and executory, until full satisfaction.29″

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2016-0008-SILVERTEX

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0007: SYSTEMS AND PLAN INTEGRATOR AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ENGR. JULIETA CUNANAN, PETITIONER, – VERSUS – MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF MURCIA (G.R. NO. 217121, 16 MARCH 2016, REYES J.) (SUBJECT/S: EFFECT OF COUNSEL’S NEGLIGENCE ON THE CASE; DISMISSAL OF CASE DUE TO LACK OF INTEREST TO PROSECUTE) (BRIEF TITLE: SPDC VS. MUN OF MURCIA)

DISPOSITIVE:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is DENIED. The Order dated July 23, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 220, in Civil Case No. Q-11-68595 is however MODIFIED to the extent that the dismissal of the complaint is hereby declared to be without prejudice. Kapunan Lotilla Garcia and Castillo Law Offices is directed to SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days from notice why it should not be disciplinarily dealt with for acts and omissions ascribed to it by its client, Systems and Plan Integrator and Development Corporation.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

IS DISMISSAL OF  A CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE A JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS.

YES. PER SECTION 3, RULE 17 OF THE RULES OF COURT.

“In Young v. Spouses Sy,18 the Court is emphatic that: 

[T]he RTC orders dismissing the case for failure to prosecute are final orders, because such orders of dismissal operate as a judgment on the merits.  This principle is now an express provision in Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, to wit: 

Section  3.  Dismissal  due  to  fault  of  plaintiff. — If,  for  no  justifiable  cause,  the  plaintiff  fails  to  appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court’s own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action.  This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. x x x “

WHAT IS THE REMEDY FOR DISMISSAL DUE TO FAILURE TO PROSECUTE?

APPEAL NOT CERTIORARI.

“It is firmly established, and with very few exceptions, that the remedy against such final order is appeal and not certiorari. 

The  general  rule  is  that  a  writ  of  certiorari  will  not  issue where the remedy of appeal is available to the aggrieved party. x x x.19  (Citations omitted, italics and emphasis in the original and underscoring ours)  

Further, Section 5(f), Rule 56 of the Rules of Court clearly provides that an appeal may be dismissed motu proprio or upon motion if a party resorts to an erroneous mode thereof. 

Prescinding from the above, the CA cannot be faulted for dismissing SPIDC’s petition for certiorari on account of its procedural flaw.  Besides, even if the Court were to exercise leniency, consider SPIDC’s motion for reconsideration belatedly filed before the RTC, and let the petition for certiorari be treated as an ordinary appeal by the CA, it would still be susceptible to dismissal.”

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF COUNSEL’S NEGLIGENCE ON CLIENT?

IT BINDS THE CLIENT.

“As a general rule, the counsel’s negligence binds the client, and no compelling reason exists for the Court to exempt the petitioner from its application.”  

IS THERE AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE THAT COUNSEL’S NEGLIGENCE BINDS THE CLIENT?

YES, WHEN THE CLIENT CAN PROVE THAT HE IS ENTIRELY FAULTLESS.

“In Philhouse Development Corporation v. Consolidated Orix Leasing and Finance Corporation,20 the Court declared that: 

The  dereliction  of  duty  by  counsel  affects  the  client.  While, exceptionally, the client may be excused from the failure of counsel, the factual and case settings in this instance, however, would not warrant such an exception; indeed, petitioners themselves may not be said to be entirely faultless.  

The  complaint  for  a  sum  of  money  and  damages  was instituted  several  years  back.  Petitioners  were  thrice  declared  in default.  x  x  x  After  an  adverse  decision  by  the  trial  court, petitioners’  counsel  failed  to  file  a  timely  notice  of  appeal.  The petition  for  relief,  subsequently  filed,  was  correctly  dismissed  by  the trial  court  for  lack  of  merit.  The  appeal  to  the  [CA]  was  itself dismissed  for  failure  to  file  an  appellant’s  brief.  Petitioners  could  not have failed to notice the succession of blunders committed by their counsel, yet they took no precautionary measures such as by forthwith seeking the help of another counsel.  No prudent party would leave the fate of his case completely to his lawyer.  It should be the duty of the client to be in touch with his counsel so as to be constantly posted about the case. 

Petitioners  have  not  been  denied  their  day  in  court.  It  is  basic  that  as  long  as  a  party  is  given  the  opportunity  to  defend  his interests  in  due  course,  he  would  have  no  reason  to  complain,  for  it is  this  opportunity  to  be  heard  that  makes  up  the  essence  of  due process.  [W]here  opportunity  to  be  heard,  either  through  oral argument or through pleadings, is accorded, there can be no denial of procedural due process.  If it were otherwise, “all that a defeated party would have to do to salvage his case,” observed the Court in one case, would be to “claim neglect or mistake on the part of his counsel as a ground for reversing the adverse judgment,” and there would then be “no end to litigation x x x as every shortcoming of counsel could be the subject of challenge by his client through another counsel who, if he (were) also found wanting, (could) x x x be disowned by the same client through another counsel, and so on ad infinitum, thereby rendering court proceedings indefinite x x x.”21 (Citations omitted, italics in the original and underscoring ours).”

WHAT REALLY  HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

“In  the  case  at  bar,  the  controversy  arose  from  SPIDC’s  complaint  for  collection  of  a  sum  of  money,  which  was  dismissed  by the  RTC  on  July  23,  2012  due  to  failure  to  prosecute.  A  review  of  the  incidents  leading  to  the  complaint’s  dismissal  by  the  RTC  and SPIDC’s filing of the petition for certiorari before the CA is therefore essential.   

On  January  28,  2012,  the  RTC  issued  an  Order  directing  SPIDC to  show  cause  why  the  latter’s  complaint  should  not  be  dismissed  for failure to prosecute.  On March 6, 2012, the RTC received SPIDC’s compliance  through  which  the  law  office  explained  that  it  was  not furnished  with  notices  regarding  the  proceedings.  The  law  office undertook  to  examine  the  records  of  the  case  for  it  to  proceed.  However,  despite  the  lapse  of  several  months,  the  law  office  still  failed  to  examine  the  records.  Consequently,  the  RTC  issued  the  Order dated  July  23,  2012  dismissing  the  case.  A  copy  of  the  said  order  was  likewise  sent  to  and  was  received  by  SPIDC  itself  on  August  29, 2012.  On November 13, 2012, SPIDC’s new counsel, Atty. Mirandilla, belatedly filed before the RTC a Motion for Reconsideration against the Order dated July 23, 2012.  The RTC denied the motion through the Order issued on October 16, 2013.22 

It  appears  from  the  records  that  SPIDC’s  complaint  was dismissed on account of the law office’s negligence.23  Philhouse Development24 instructs that as a general rule, the dereliction of duty by the counsel affects the client. As an exception thereto, the client may be excused from the counsel’s failure only if the former can prove to have been entirely faultless.25”

WAS PETITIONER SPIDC FAULTLESS?

NO, BECAUSE SPIDC LEFT THE FATE OF ITS CASE TO THE HANDS OF THE LAW OFFICE.

“No prudent party would leave the fate of his case completely to his lawyer.  It should be the duty of the client to be in touch with his counsel so as to be constantly posted about the case.” 

……… 

“In the instant petition, the law office’s lackadaisical efforts in prosecuting the complaint should have prompted SPIDC to take the precautionary measures of being constantly updated about the proceedings and promptly engaging the services of another lawyer.  Instead, SPIDC left the fate of its case to the hands of the law office.  SPIDC was not entirely blameless; hence, the Court finds no compelling reason to exempt the instant case from the application of the rule regarding the binding effect upon the client of counsel’s negligence.”   

HOW THEN CAN SPIDC GET JUSTICE?

THE SUPREME COURT SAID THE DISMISSAL MUST BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN ORDER TO BE IN ACCORD WITH JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

“The case is dismissed sans prejudice.

The Court, however, notes that SPIDC’s complaint for collection of a sum of money was lodged against the respondent relative to goods or services, which were already delivered or rendered. The Court thus finds it more in accord with justice and equity that the dismissal of the case be without prejudice.”

ARE SPDIC’S LAWYERS LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE?

PROOFS ARE INCONCLUSIVE.

“Proofs are inconclusive to determine whether or not the law office had indeed been negligent.

Anent the law office’s negligent acts or omissions, the records are insufficient for the Court to be able to conclusively determine the truth of SPIDC’s allegations.”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2016-0007-MURCIA

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0006: IN THE MATTER OF: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT FOR DISHONESTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND PERJURY COMMITTED BY JUDGE JAIME E. CONTRERAS (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE THEN 4TH PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OF LIBMANAN, CAMARINES SUR)  (A.M. NO. RTJ-16-2452, 29 MARCH 2016, REYES, J.) (SUBJECT/S: DISHONESTY; GRAVE MISCONDUCT; PERJURY) (BRIEF TITLE: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE CONTRERAS)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, Judge Jaime E. Contreras is hereby found GUILTY of DISHONESTY and is SUSPENDED from the service for one (1) year without pay, to take effect upon the finality hereof, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

HOW JUDGE SHOULD CONDUCT ONESELF

“Time and time again, this Court has stressed that “the behavior of all employees and officials involved in the administration of justice, from judges to the most junior clerks, is circumscribed with a heavy responsibility.”15 “As visible representation of the law, respondent judge should have conducted himself in a manner which would merit the respect of the people to him in particular and to the Judiciary in general.”16

DISHONESTY AND CORRESPONDING PENALTY

Dishonesty is considered a grave offense. It carries the maximum penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government service.

In OCA v. Judge Aguilar, 17 however, this Court refrained from imposing the maximum penalty based on several factors attendant to the case. The Court held:

Nonetheless, Rule IV, Section 53 of the Civil Service Rules also provides that in the determination of the penalties to be imposed, extenuating, mitigating, aggravating or alternative circumstances attendant to the commission of the offense shall be considered. Among the circumstances that may be allowed to modify the penalty are ( 1) length of service in the government, (2) good faith, and (3) other analogous circumstances.

In several jurisprudential precedents, the Court has refrained from imposing the actual administrative penalties prescribed by law or regulation in the presence of mitigating factors. Factors such as the respondent’s length of service, the respondent’s acknowledgement of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable considerations, respondent’s advanced age, among other things, have had varying significance in the determination by the Court of the imposable penalty. x x x.18”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 SCD-2016-0006-JUDGE CONTRERAS

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.