Catalino Fajardo vs San Miguel Foods, Inc.
G.R. No. 267580 – Remedial Law – Civil Procedure – Rule 65; Petition for Certiorari – Extension of the 60-day period to file
Legal Ethics – CPRA; Canon IV; Competence and Diligence – Lawyer’s Negligence – When not binding to client
In 2019, Catalino Fajardo and his co-workers filed an illegal dismissal case against San Miguel Foods, Inc. and Hua Tong Far East, Inc. In October 2021, their case was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter. They appealed the decision, but the NLRC denied their appeal in July 2022. Their motion for reconsideration was denied in September 2022. They received a copy of the denial on 11 October 2022. Under the Rules, they have until 10 December 2022 to question the denial via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
On 5 December 2022, Fajardo et al filed a motion for a 30-day extension (until 10 January 2023) on the ground that their previous lawyer, Atty. Geneses Abot, failed to prepare their petition despite previous promises from Atty. Abot that he will prepare the petition; that they have already paid for Atty. Abot to prepare the petition but Atty. Abot bailed on them; that it was too late when they determined that Atty. Abot never prepared the petition; that they need an extension in order to secure the services of another lawyer.
On 10 January 2023, their new lawyer filed their petition for certiorari.
On 16 January 2023, the CA denied their motion for extension. Hence, their petition was deemed filed out of time. On 26 May 2023, the CA denied their motion for reconsideration. The CA ruled that Fajardo et al are bound by the negligence of their counsel and that they did not try hard enough to look for a new counsel.
ISSUE: Whether or not Fajardo et al’s petition for certiorari must be admitted.
HELD: Yes. Ordinarily, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must be filed not later than 60 days from notice of judgment. Ordinarily also, the period is inextendible in view of the doctrine of speedy disposition of cases. However, there are exceptions to this rule, which are:
(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.
In this case, the reason advanced by Fajardo et al should have been sufficient for the CA to grant the extension upon use of its sound discretion.
In general, clients are bound by the negligence of their lawyers. However, clients should not unfairly suffer for their lawyer’s mistakes. Thus, clients may not be bound by their lawyers’ negligence in the following instances:
(1) When the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process
(2) When it will result in the outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property; or
(3) Where the interest of justice so requires.
Based on the record, Fajardo et al do not have the luxury of immediately switching from one lawyer to another. They are not learned of procedural laws hence they cannot be blamed if they were not able to secure a new counsel on time.
Read full text.