Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
NATIONAL TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION,
Petitioner, -versus - DANIEL
CASTILLO,
Respondents. |
G.R. No. 154124 Present: CARPIO
MORALES, Chairperson BRION, BERSAMIN, ABAD,*
and VILLARAMA,
JR., JJ.: Promulgated: August
13, 2010 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
R E S O L U T I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
Petitioner National Tobacco Administration (NTA) seeks the
review of the decision dated March 22, 2002 (denying NTA’s petition for review),[1] and
the resolution dated June 26, 2002 (denying NTA’s motion for reconsideration),[2] both
promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 67551 entitled National Tobacco Administration v. Daniel
Castillo.
The respondent was one of the
employees adversely affected by the reorganization of NTA. He was terminated
from his employment due to the abolition of his item as Cashier I in its
Isabela Branch. He appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which on
Undaunted, NTA filed a petition for
relief in the CSC, arguing that it had been unable to appeal from the CSC’s
earlier resolutions due to excusable negligence; that it had a meritorious
defense; and that the questioned resolutions were inconsistent with the CSC’s
pronouncement in Dabu v. NTA (CSC
Case No. 99-0767), a case whose facts were identical to those of this case. It
explained that its former counsel’s excessively numerous duties (in addition to
his being the Deputy Administrator for Operations of NTA) had rendered his
compliance with all the legal requirements of NTA’s cases physically and
mentally impossible for him, leading him to inadvertently and erroneously file
a second motion for reconsideration
instead of taking an appeal to the CA.
On
NTA elevated the dismissal to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43
of the Rules of Court. It assailed the CSC’s dismissal of its
petition for relief, claiming that its failure to file its appeal had been due
to excusable negligence.
On
NTA moved for the reconsideration,
but the CA denied its motion for
reconsideration through the assailed resolution of
Hence, this recourse, whereby NTA
contends that the CA erred in declaring that the termination of the respondent had
been without notice and hearing, and in not finding that NTA’s counsel had been
guilty of excusable negligence.
The decisive considerations are
whether the negligence of NTA’s counsel was excusable, and whether NTA’s appeal
was still allowable.
We rule against NTA.
NTA’s argument that its former
counsel faced the “herculean task of personally handling the numerous legal
cases of the petitioner” without any lawyer assistant in addition to his
“regular duties and responsibilities as Deputy Administrator for Operations of
the agency,”[11] even
assuming it to be true, did not justify the erroneous filing of a second motion for reconsideration and a petition
for relief from judgment in the CSC where such recourses were not allowed under
the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases
in the Civil Service. NTA’s former counsel ought to have known of the
correct recourses to take from the adverse resolution of the CSC.
Moreover, the oversight of NTA’s
counsel in not seasonably appealing to the CA was not excusable. For one, mere volume
of the work of an attorney has never excused an omission to comply with the
period to appeal. Also, NTA itself caused its own counsel to be overburdened
with work by not employing additional lawyers to handle its excessive legal
work and avoid its present predicament. Clearly, the neglect of counsel in not
filing the appeal on time was not something that ordinary diligence and
prudence could not have guarded against.[12]
A client is generally bound by the
mistakes of his lawyer; otherwise, there would never be an end to a litigation
as long as a new counsel could be employed, and who could then allege and show
that the preceding counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or experienced or
learned.[13] The
legal profession demands of a lawyer that degree of vigilance and attention
expected of a good father of a family; such lawyer should adopt the norm of
practice expected of men of good intentions.[14] Moreover, a lawyer owes it to himself and to
his clients to adopt an efficient and orderly system of keeping track of the
developments in his cases, and should be knowledgeable of the remedies appropriate
to his cases.
Compounding the dire situation of NTA
was that its appeal to the CA was too belated. Thereby, the assailed resolution
of the CSC attained finality and became executory,[15] resulting in the CSC resolution becoming
immutable and unalterable, that is, it might no longer be altered, modified, or
reversed in any respect even if the alteration, modification, or reversal was
meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law, and whether the alteration,
modification, or reversal would be made by the court or office that rendered the
resolution or by the highest court of the land.[16]
WHEREFORE, we
deny the petition for review on certiorari,
and affirm the decision dated
SO ORDERED.
LUCAS P.
BERSAMIN
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Additional
member per Special Order No. 843 dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 30-36; penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. De los Santos (deceased), and concurred in by Associate Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero (retired) and Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico (retired).
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Gold Line Transit, Inc. v. Ramos, 415 Phil. 492 (2001).
[13] Tesoro v. Court of Appeals, 153 Phil. 580, 588 (1973).
[14] Gonzales
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129090,
[15] Manipor v.
Ricafort, G.R. No. 150159,
[16] Union
Bank of the Philippines v. Pacific Equipment Corporation, G.R. No. 172053,
October 6, 2008, 567 SCRA 573.