Period to Appeal

This Court has explained that the purpose in limiting the period of appeal is to forestall or avoid an unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies. Where no element of intent to delay the administration of justice could be attributed to petitioners, a one-day delay does not justify their petition’s dismissal.

In this case, the last day for filing the petition for review was on September 13, 2006. The petitioners entrusted the drafting of their petition with their counsel, who in turn entrusted the attaching of the required annexes to the petition with her secretary. The secretary resigned from her job sometime later to avoid giving her employer “problems for unexpected absences in the future.” Aside from this, the petitioners also submitted an Affidavit from the secretary, who narrated her ordeal that day and why she was not able to inform her employer of the whereabouts of the petition. A certification from the doctor of one of the secretary’s children was also submitted to prove that the secretary indeed brought her children to the doctor on September 14, 2006, the deadline for filing the petition for review with the Court of Appeals (Heirs of Rodolfo Crisostomo, (Euprocinia Crisostomo, et al.) Vs. Rudex International Development Corporation, G.R. No. 176129. August 24, 2011).

Notice of Hearing

In Basco v. Court of Appeals, we allowed a liberal application of technical rules of procedure, pertaining to the requisites of a proper notice of hearing, upon consideration of the importance of the subject matter of the controversy.

It was not refuted that petitioner furnished respondent and respondent actually received copies of the Motion for Reconsideration, as well as the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC Order dated September 7, 2000 filed by petitioner. As a result, respondent was able to file its Oppositions to the said Motions. The RTC, in issuing its Order dated December 7, 2000, was able to consider the arguments presented by both sides. Hence, there was substantial compliance by petitioner with the rules on notice of hearing for its Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC Order dated September 7, 2000. Respondent cannot claim that it was deprived of the opportunity to be heard on its opposition to said Motions (City of Dumaguete, herein represented by City Mayor, Agustin R. Perdices Vs. Philippines Ports Authority, G.R. No. 168973. August 24, 2011).

Explanation of Service

Counsel for petitioner holds office in Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, in the Visayas; while counsel for respondent holds office in Quezon City, Metro Manila, in Luzon. Given the considerable distance between the offices of these two counsels, personal service of pleadings and motions by one upon the other was clearly not practicable and a written explanation as to why personal service was not done would only be superfluous (City of Dumaguete, herein represented by City Mayor, Agustin R. Perdices Vs. Philippines Ports Authority, G.R. No. 168973. August 24, 2011).

Collateral Attack Against Judgment

Thus, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) wrote that “a collateral attack against a judgment is generally not allowed, unless the judgment is void upon its face or its nullity is apparent by virtue of its own recitals.” (Renald F. Vilando Vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, Jocelyn Sy Limkaichong and Hon. Speaker Prospero Nograles, G.R. Nos. 192147 & 192149. August 23, 2011).

Res Judicata

It is true that res judicata is to be disregarded if its rigid application would involve the sacrifice of justice to technicality (Spouses Nelson and Myra Villanueva
Vs. The Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 163433. August 22, 2011)

Indeed, we have held that res judicata is to be disregarded if its rigid application would involve the sacrifice of justice to technicality, particularly in this case where there was actually no determination of the substantive issues in the first case and what is at stake is respondents’ home (Philippine National Bank v.The Intestate Estate of Francisco de Guzman , G.R. No. 182507, June 16, 2010).

In American jurisdiction, it is recognized that “(i)nstances in which dismissals are not considered to be on the merits for purposes of the application of the doctrine of res judicata include … dismissal based on court’s procedural inability to consider a case.” (Ceferino S. Cabreza, Jr., et al. Vs. Amparo Robles Cabreza, G.R. No. 181962. January 16, 2011).

Service of Summons

In the case at bench, when Atiko filed its Notice of Appeal, Memorandum of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration of the April 8, 2003 Decision of the RTC, and Petition for Review, it never questioned the jurisdiction of the MeTC over its person. The filing of these pleadings seeking affirmative relief amounted to voluntary appearance and, hence, rendered the alleged lack of jurisdiction moot. In Palma v. Galvez, this Court reiterated the oft-repeated rule that “the filing of motions seeking affirmative relief, such as, to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, are considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.” (Atiko Trnas, Inc., et al. Vs. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc., G.R. No. 167545. August 17, 2011).

Laches

On the other hand, laches, being rooted in equity, is not always to be applied strictly in a way that would obliterate an otherwise valid claim especially between blood relatives. The existence of a confidential relationship based upon consanguinity is an important circumstance for consideration; hence, the doctrine is not to be applied mechanically as between near relatives (Estate of Margarita D. Cabacungan, represented by Luz Laigo-Ali Vs. Marilou Laigo, et al., G.R. No. 175073. August 15, 2011).

Appeal Period to NLRC

Time and again, however, this Court, considering the substantial merits of the case, has relaxed this rule on, and excused the late posting of, the appeal bond when there are strong and compelling reasons for the liberality, such as the prevention of miscarriage of justice extant in the case or the special circumstances in the case combined with its legal merits or the amount and the issue involved. After all, technical rules cannot prevent courts from exercising their duties to determine and settle, equitably and completely, the rights and obligations of the parties. This is one case where the exception to the general rule lies.

While respondents had failed to post their bond within the 10-day period provided above, it is evident, on the other hand, that petitioners are NOT employees of respondents, since their relationship fails to pass muster the four-fold test of employment (Marticio Semblante and Dubrick Pilar Vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 196426. August 15, 2011).

Res Inter Alios Acta

In as much as Bokingco’s extrajudicial confession is inadmissible against him, it is likewise inadmissible against Col, specifically where he implicated the latter as a cohort. Under Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of another. Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant, is not admissible against his or her co-accused, and is considered as hearsay against them. An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made by a conspirator. Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that the act or declaration of the conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator provided that the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than by such act or declaration. In order that the admission of a conspirator may be received against his or her co-conspirators, it is necessary that first, the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself; second, the admission relates to the common object; and third, it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy (People of the Philippines Vs. Michael Bokingo and Reynante Col, G.R. No. 187536. August 10, 2011)

Certification Election

The general rule is that an employer has no standing to question the process of certification election, since this is the sole concern of the workers. Law and policy demand that employers take a strict, hands-off stance in certification elections. The bargaining representative of employees should be chosen free from any extraneous influence of management. A labor bargaining representative, to be effective, must owe its loyalty to the employees alone and to no other. The only exception is where the employer itself has to file the petition pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code because of a request to bargain collectively (San Miguel Foods, Inc. Vs. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Union, G.R. No. 146206. August 1, 2011)

Fallo

The general rule is that where there is a conflict between the dispositive portion or the fallo and the body of the decision, the fallo controls. This rule rests on the theory that the fallo is the final order while the opinion in the body is merely a statement ordering nothing. However, where the inevitable conclusion from the body of the decision is so clear as to show that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision will prevail (ASIAN CENTER FOR CAREER AND EMPLOYMENT SYSTEM AND SERVICES, INC. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, G.R. No. 131656. October 12, 1998).