4 - Reyes V NLRC

REYES
V
NLRC
GR NO. 180551 FEBRUARY 10, 2009
ERWIN REYES
COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL

DISMISSAL
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines (CCBP)

Rotaida Taguibao (Taguibao)
Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Reyes
UPON REACHING THE COURT OF APPEALS,

REYES FIILED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI,
THROUGH HER PREVIOUS LAWYER
Court of Appeals Dismissed the Petition for the failure of Reyes

to give any explanation why a copy of the said Petition was not
personally served upon the counsel of the adverse parties
July 19, 2007
CINNAVASE BOTANICALS | 2020
Reyes, through his new counsel, filed a Motion for

Reconsideration and sought for the liberality of the Court
of Appeals, faulting his former counsel for the procedural
defects.
This time, it would appear that Reyes provided the

explanation required by Section 11, Rule 3 of the1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure
However, on November 2007, Court of Appeals denied the

Motion for Reconsideration
Whether or not the case should
be dismissed for failure to comply
with Section 11, Rule 13
NO
RULE 13, SECTION 11
Section 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. — Whenever
practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be
done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the
court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written
explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A
violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed. (n)
R U L I N G
Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. Ricafort,

We thus take this opportunity to clarify that under Section 11, Rule 13 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, personal service and filing is the general rule,
and resort to other modes of service and filing, the exception. Henceforth,
whenever personal service or filing is practicable, in light of the circumstances
of time, place and person, personal service or filing is mandatory. Only when
personal service or filing is not practicable may resort to other modes be had,
which must then be accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal
service or filing was not practicable to begin with. In adjudging the plausibility
of an explanation, a court shall likewise consider the importance of the subject
matter of the case or the issues involved therein, and the prima facie merit of
the pleading sought to be expunged for violation of Section 11. This Court
cannot rule otherwise, lest we allow circumvention of the innovation introduced
by the 1997 Rules in order to obviate delay in the administration of justice.
Nevertheless, the Rules of Court itself calls for its liberal
construction, with the view of promoting their objective of
securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every
action and proceeding. The Court is fully aware that
procedural rules are not to be belittled or simply disregarded
for these prescribed procedures insure an orderly and speedy
administration of justice.
R U L I N G
However, it is equally true that litigation is not merely a
game of technicalities. Law and jurisprudence grant to courts
the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of
even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to
reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation speedily
and the parties' right to an opportunity to be heard.
In numerous cases, the Court has allowed liberal construction of
Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court when doing so
would be in the service of the demands of substantial justice
and in the exercise of the equity jurisdiction of this Court.
The call for a liberal interpretation of the Rules is even more

strident in the instant case which Reyes' former counsel was
obviously negligent in handling his case before the Court of
Appeals. It was Reyes' former counsel who failed to attach the
required explanation to the Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 96343.
R U L I N G
Said counsel did not bother to inform Reyes, his client, of the 10
November 2006 Resolution of the appellate court dismissing
the Petition for lack of the required explanation. Worse, said
counsel totally abandoned Reyes' case by merely allowing the
reglementary period for filing a Motion for Reconsideration to
lapse without taking any remedial steps; thus, the 10 November
2006 Resolution became final and executory.
The basic general rule is that the negligence of counsel binds the client.
Hence, if counsel commits a mistake in the course of litigation, thereby
resulting in his losing the case, his client must perforce suffer the
consequences of the mistake.
The reason for the rule is to avoid the possibility that every losing party
would raise the issue of negligence of his or her counsel to escape an
adverse decision of the court, to the detriment of our justice system, as no
party would ever accept a losing verdict.
R U L I N G
This general rule, however, pertains only to simple negligence of the
lawyer. Where the negligence of counsel is one that is so gross, palpable,
pervasive, reckless and inexcusable, then it does not bind the client
since, in such a case, the client is effectively deprived of his or her day in
court.
The circumstances of this case qualify it under the exception, rather
than the general rule.
The negligence of Reyes' former counsel may be considered gross since

it invariably resulted to the foreclosure of remedies otherwise readily
available to Reyes. Not only was Reyes deprived of the opportunity to
bring his case before the Court of Appeals with the outright dismissal of
his Petition on a technicality, but he was also robbed of the chance to
seek reconsideration of the dismissal of his Petition.
R U L I N G
What further impel this Court to heed the call for substantial justice are
the pressing merits of this case which, if left overshadowed by
technicalities, could result in flagrant violations of the provisions of the
Labor Code and of the categorical mandate of the Constitution
affording protection to labor.
Higher interests of justice and equity demand that
Reyes should not be denied his day in court and made
him to suffer for his counsel's indiscretions.
To cling to the general rule in this case would only to

condone, rather than rectify, a serious injustice to a
party - - whose only fault was to repose his faith and
trust in his previous counsel - - and close our eyes to
the glaring grave abuse of discretion committed by the
NLRC.
R U L I N G

4 - Reyes V NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 - Reyes V NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 - Reyes V NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REYES

COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines (CCBP)

UPON REACHING THE COURT OF APPEALS,

Court of Appeals Dismissed the Petition for the failure of Reyes

Reyes, through his new counsel, filed a Motion for

This time, it would appear that Reyes provided the

However, on November 2007, Court of Appeals denied the

Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. Ricafort,

The call for a liberal interpretation of the Rules is even more

The negligence of Reyes' former counsel may be considered gross since

To cling to the general rule in this case would only to

You might also like