7/7/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
until August 11, 2019, reckoned from the expiration of the reglementary period on
July 27, 2019, within which to file his petition.
Indeed, petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file his Rule 43 Petition within
the allowable period or on July 22, 2019. Although the Rules allow only for a 15-day
extension or until August 11, 2019, he was able to file his petition on August 9, 2019,
also clearly within the allowable extended period. Hence, in both instances, petitioner
filed his pleadings on time. Moreover, petitioner's error in the affidavit of service stating
that he served copies of the Rule 43 Petition to the adverse parties through personal
service instead of registered mail appears to have been an honest mistake. In any
case, the inaccuracy in the statement of the manner of service appears inconsequential
considering that, after all, he was able to serve copies of the petition to the adverse
parties.
In sum, the Court finds that the CA erred in dismissing outright the Rule 43 Petition
based solely on procedural grounds; therefore, a remand of the case for a resolution on
the merits is warranted. Finally, following the Court's recent disposition in Chin, the
reminder to the Department of Labor and Employment and the NCMB to revise or
amend the Revised Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Voluntary Arbitration
Proceedings to reflect the ruling in the Guagua National Colleges case is hereby
reiterated.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated September 3, 2019
and March 6, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 161699 are hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the present case is REMANDED to the Court
of Appeals for resolution on the merits.
SO ORDERED.
Gesmundo, Lazaro-Javier, Lopez, and Rosario,* JJ., concur.
* Designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2797 dated November 5, 2020.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-39.
[2] Id. at 44-45 and 46-48, respectively. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-
Sison with Associate Justices Pedro B. Corales and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin,
concurring.
[3] CA rollo, pp. 42-43.
[4] Id. at 43.
[5] Id.
[6] Id. at 43-44.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66765
4/6