earlier requests were warded off by indefinite promises. The complaint filed on March 2, 2001 is beyond the three-year period mandated by the Labor Code. Moreover, we are also constrained to deny this appeal as the petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals was filed late. Petitioner invokes the indulgence of this Court and cites the principle of substantial justice in his bid for liberal application of the rules of procedure. He insists that his counsels heavy workload and extreme pressures from his other professional commitments are reasons good enough for us to grant his motion for extension of time. Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is explicit that a petition for certiorari shall be filed not later than sixty days from notice of the judgment. No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen days. We have consistently held that the allowance or denial of a motion for extension of time is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and such discretion vested in the courts must be exercised wisely and prudently, and never capriciously, with a view to substantial justice.[11] Though heavy workload and extreme pressures may be allowed under the principle of substantial justice as a reason for the grant of an extension of time, the Court of Appeals has no authority to grant an extension of thirty days, or beyond the fifteen days allowed under the Rules. We cannot fault the appellate court for faithfully complying with the rules of procedure which it has been mandated to observe.[12] Save for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance is enjoined to facilitate the orderly administration of justice.[13] In the present case, petitioner filed the petition on May 15, 2002 or thirty days after the reglementary period. Even if petitioner would have been given the maximum allowed extension of fifteen days, the petition would still be late. Bear in mind that the filing of the petition within the reglementary period is jurisdictional. The assailed NLRC resolutions became final upon the failure to file the petition within the prescribed period. It pains us to deny this appeal, but a final judgment is beyond the power of the Court of Appeals, or of this Court, to alter without compelling reason. This case is a clear example of how a counsels inadvertence can defeat his clients cause. Basic is the rule that a client is bound by the mistake of his counsel.[14]Hence, members of the bar must take utmost care of the cases they handle for they owe fidelity to the cause of their clients.[15]