8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly De Leon thus filed an appeal with the NLRC. Rulings of the NLRC On October 21, 2014, the Third Division of the NLRC issued a Decision[29] partially granting de Leon's appeal. It found the penalty of dismissal too harsh and not commensurate to the act committed, more so because it was done without wrongful intent.[30] It also took into consideration the fact that de Leon was an exemplary employee during his stint with PTC, as proved by the numerous awards he received.[31] It thus held that de Leon was illegally dismissed by PTC. Aggrieved, PTC filed a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC. On November 28, 2014, the NLRC issued a Resolution[32] reversing its earlier Decision. In this Resolution, the NLRC noted that de Leon was well-aware of the company policy, yet he willfully violated the same. As the penalty provided under PTC's Code of Discipline was dismissal, de Leon's dismissal was therefore justified. The NLRC likewise took into consideration de Leon's position as Scheduler. It noted that de Leon's duties and responsibilities made him a member of the managerial staff, and thus, this violation made him lose the trust and confidence of PTC. All in all, the NLRC held that de Leon was validly dismissed. De Leon then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA. Ruling of the CA In the questioned Decision[33] dated July 19, 2016, the CA dismissed de Leon's Petition for Certiorari primarily for allegedly being filed out of time. It held: Records reflect that petitioner received on 3 December 2014 a copy of the assailed Resolution of the NLRC. Conformably with Sections 1 and 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, petitioner had 60 days from 3 December 2014 within which to file his Petition for Certiorari, or, on 1 February 2015. As it happened, on 1 February 2015, the impugned Resolution became final and executory and was ordered recorded in the NLRC Book of Entries of Judgment. Plain as a pikestaff, when the instant Petition was filed on 2 February 2015, the repugned Resolution had already attained finality.[34] It then held that it nevertheless sieved through the records, and found no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC's Resolution. De Leon filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the CA in a Resolution[35] dated May 23, 2017. Hence, the instant appeal. Issue https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65291 4/12