received the Resolution dated January 7, 2000 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.  Had he done so, he would have known that his Withdrawal of Appearance has not been sent yet by petitioner.  It is the duty of a lawyer to pay heed to the urgency and importance of registered letter sent by the court.[36]  Before the date of receipt on March 27, 2000 by the CA of the Withdrawal of Appearance, Atty. Orias, Jr. remained as petitioner’s counsel of record.    Ordinarily, until his dismissal or withdrawal is made of record in court, any judicial notice sent to a counsel of record is binding upon his client even though as between them the professional relationship may have been terminated. [37]   However, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, Atty. Orias, Jr. was negligent in not adequately protecting petitioner’s interest, which necessarily calls for a liberal construction of the Rules. Verily, the negligence of Atty. Orias, Jr. cannot be deemed as negligence of petitioner itself in the present case.  A notice to a lawyer who appears to have been unconscionably irresponsible cannot be considered as notice to his client.[38]  Thus, petitioner is deemed to have filed its petition for review on certiorari within the reglementary period as alleged in its Reply.    The general rule is that findings of fact of the NLRC, as affirmed by the CA, are conclusive upon the Supreme Court when supported by substantial evidence that is manifest in the decision and on the records.[39]  However, this Court has recognized several exceptions to this rule, to wit:  (1)  when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;  (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;  (3)  when there is grave abuse of discretion;  (4)  when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;  (5)  when the findings of facts are conflicting;  (6)  when in making its