5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly admitted[41] that he was not informed by Atty. Borromeo that he received the December 30, 2010 Resolution on January 12, 2011. In a Decision[42] dated October 23, 2012, the CA did not address the issue raised by petitioners regarding the timeliness of the filing of Sarmiento’s CA petition. Instead, it ascribed grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC and thereby ordered the reinstatement of the LA Decision, effectively finding petitioners jointly and severally liable for Sarmiento’s money claims.[43] In line with the purpose of giving full protection to labor, the CA reasoned that corporate officers, directors, and/or partners shall remain solidarily liable for the claims and damages of the overseas contract worker, as long as they acted as officers during the effectivity of the employment contract,[44] which in Sarmiento’s case was from May 10, 2008 to February 10, 2009. [45] As petitioners were already engaged as directors and officers of Sea Gem at the time,[46] they may not simply avoid liability considering that their resignation circumvented Section 10 of RA 8042.[47] Petitioners moved for reconsideration[48] which was, however, denied in a Resolution[49] dated March 26, 2013. At odds with the CA’s ruling, petitioners seek its reversal through the present petition, maintaining their stance that Sarmiento’s petition for certiorari before the CA was filed out of time, hence, the CA did not acquire jurisdiction over the same and the NLRC Decision could no longer be assailed. The Issue Before the Court The essential issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA erred when it found grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in absolving petitioners from liability in connection with Sarmiento’s money claims notwithstanding the fact that Sarmiento’s petition challenging the NLRC Decision was filed out of time. The Court’s Ruling The petition is meritorious. Under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Rules), as amended by A.M. No. 07-712-SC, an aggrieved party has sixty (60) days from receipt of the assailed decision, order or resolution within which to file a petition for certiorari, viz.: SEC. 4. When and where to file petition. – The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the petition shall be filed not latter than sixty (60) days counted from the notice of the denial of the motion. x x x x (Emphasis supplied) elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57652 4/9