5/28/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
The NLRC Proceedings
Pending petitioners’ appeal, or on June 4, 2010, Atty. Jay T. Borromeo (Atty. Borromeo)
entered[27] his appearance as counsel for Sarmiento and simultaneously filed
pleadings on his behalf.
In a Decision[28] dated September 30, 2010, the NLRC affirmed the LA’s Ruling with
modification absolving petitioners from any liability in connection with Sarmiento’s
money claims, considering that they were no longer connected with Sea Gem at the
time Sarmiento’s cause of action arose. It likewise gave credence to the letter of the
POEA stating that petitioners were never recognized as directors of Sea Gem.[29]
Nonetheless, the NLRC assured Sarmiento that he may still proceed against Sea Gem,
Corinthian, the Peñalosa Group, Torrefil, and Alican who did not interpose an appeal.
Dissatisfied, Sarmiento moved for reconsideration which the NLRC denied in a
Resolution[30] dated December, 30, 2010 (December 30, 2010 Resolution). On
January 12, 2011, Atty. Borromeo was duly notified of the said December 30,
2010 Resolution, as evidenced by the registry return receipt issued by the Bureau of
Posts.[31]
The CA Proceedings
Subsequently, or on April 7, 2011, Sarmiento, personally and on his own behalf, filed
a petition for certiorari[32] before the CA, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the NLRC in modifying the LA Decision by absolving petitioners from liability. In
the said petition, Sarmiento claimed that he was personally notified of the December
30, 2010 Resolution only on February 10, 2011, thus, it was seasonably filed.[33]
In their Comment[34] dated May 4, 2011, petitioners pointed out that Sarmiento’s
petition was filed beyond the sixty (60)-day reglementary period within which to file a
petition for certiorari, having been filed eighty-five (85) days from the time Sarmiento’s
counsel of record, Atty. Borromeo, received the December 30, 2010 Resolution on
January 12, 2011.[35] As there is dearth of evidence showing that Atty. Borromeo had
been relieved of his duties as counsel at the time, petitioners averred that Sarmiento’s
petition should be dismissed outright, citing the rule that where a party is represented
by counsel, service upon the latter is binding upon the client.[36] Moreover, records
disclose that Atty. Borromeo has not filed a formal withdrawal of appearance.[37]
Thereafter, or on June 1, 2011, Atty. Borromeo filed a Manifestation with Notice of
Withdrawal of Appearance,[38] explaining that he had been long discharged of his
duties as counsel of Sarmiento but due to personal problems and other professional
commitments, he forgot to file a formal withdrawal of appearance in this case. Further,
he denied receipt of the December 30, 2010 Resolution and claimed that it was his
neighbor, a certain Roland Allan Lomentigar, who received it on January 12, 2011.[39]
On even date, Sarmiento, again representing himself, submitted a Reply[40] where he
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57652
3/9