Comment Caisip - C.A

Republic of the Philippines
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines,

Inc. and/or Natividad P. Nisce,
Petitioner,
CA. – GR. SP. No. __________
-vs-
Reynaldo Caisip & National Labor

Relations Commission (NLRC),
Respondents,
x------------------------------------------------x
MOTION TO DISMISS
PETITIONERS’ PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI
With utmost courtesy unto this Honorable appellate court, private

respondent Reynaldo C. Caisip through counsel most respectfully state, that:
1. The instant petition warrants outright dismissal for failure of the

petitioners’ to submit the same within the 60 day prescribed period of time
to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Sec. 4 of
said Rule provides that:
“SEC. 4. When and where petition filed.—The petition may 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 sixty (60) day period shall be
counted from notice of the denial of said motion.
The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to

the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board,
officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising
jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme
Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not
the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the
Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it
involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, and
unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall
be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for
compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days.”
[Bold emphasis ours]
2. Paragraph II of petitioners’ petition state that:
“On October 2011, petitioner received a copy of the LA

Decision, which declared that private respondent was
constructively dismissed by the Company. Petitioner
filed its Memorandum of Appeal assailing the LA
Decision. On 19 January 2012, petitioner received a
copy of the 11 January 2012 Resolution affirming the
LA Decision ruling private respondent was
constructively dismissed. On 3 February 2012,
petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On 11
April 2012, petitioner received a copy of the 19 March
2012 Assailed Resolution of the NLRC denying
petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. Pursuant to
Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, petitioner has
until 10 June 2012 or the following working day to file
instant Petition.” [Bold letters ours].
3. The notice denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was received by

the petitioners on April 11 2012. This is accurate. However, petitioners’
failed to state the date when the notice denying petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration was received by their former counsel on record during the
proceedings at the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the
same counsel who filed their motion for reconsideration. The Registry
Return Receipt of the NLRC 2nd Division reveals that the former counsel
for the petitioners’ received a copy of the denial of the motion for
reconsideration on APRIL 3, 2012. Since no extension of time to file the
petition was filed by petitioners’ present counsel or former counsel on
record, the June 11, 2012 petition was filed eight (8) days beyond the 60
day period.
4. As provided for by law and existing jurisprudence, the 60 day prescriptive

period commenced at the time petitioners’ counsel received a copy of the
notice of denial of their motion for reconsideration which in this case was
on April 3, 2012. A photocopy of the certified true copy of the Registry
Return Receipt issued by the NLRC 2nd Division evidencing the fact that
petitioners’ former counsel, Atty. Juan B. Valdez, received the notice of
denial of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on April 3, 2012 is hereto
attached as Annex “1”. The signature of the addressee or his authorized
agent is bracketed as Annex “1-A” and the date of receipt is bracketed as
Annex “1-B”.
5. In addition to the above, the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration to the

January 11, 2012 Resolution of the NLRC was also filed beyond the
prescribed period of time to file said motion as provided for under the
2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure. Sec. 15 of said rules provide that:
“Section 15. MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION. –

Motion for reconsideration of any decision, resolution
or order of the Commission shall not be entertained
except when based on palpable or patent errors;
provided that the motion is filed within ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of decision, resolution or
order, with proof of service that a copy of the same has
been furnished, within the reglementary period, the
adverse party; and provided further, that only one such
motion from the same party shall be entertained.”
6. As mentioned in Paragraph II of the petition. Petitioners’ received on

January 19, 2012 the 11 January 2012 decision of the NLRC. On February 3,
2012, they filed their motion for reconsideration. Clearly, petitioners filed
their motion for reconsideration five (5) days beyond the ten (10) day
period to file the said motion as contained in the above 2011 NLRC Rules
of Procedure.
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed unto this Honorable appellate
Court that after due consideration of the foregoing, a decision shall issue
dismissing the petition for being filed beyond the prescriptive period in the
interest of fair play and social justice.
Other relief just and equitable under premises are also most respectfully
prayed for.
Respectfully submitted this 5th day of July 2012 in Baguio City.
BASA BALAGTEY LAW OFFICES

1st Floor Abriol Bldg., Benetiz Court,
Magsaysay Avenue, Baguio City
by:
MILTON L. BALAGTEY
IBP NO. 878934/01-09-12/Baguio City
PTR NO. 0798175/01-09-12/Baguio City
Roll No. 45247/05-08-00
MCLE Compliance No. III-0000794
Copy furnished:
LAGUESMA HAGSALIN
CONSULTA & GASTARDO Registry Receipt No. ______
Counsel for the petitioners July ___, 2012
Unit 705 Prestige Tower, F. Ortigas, Jr. Rd. Baguio City Post office
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
A copy of this motion was served to the above counsel for the petitioners and
filed unto this Honorable Court of Appeal by means of mail due to lack of distance,
time constraints and impracticability of personal service.
MILTON L. BALAGTEY

Comment Caisip - C.A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comment Caisip - C.A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comment Caisip - C.A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines,

Reynaldo Caisip & National Labor

With utmost courtesy unto this Honorable appellate court, private

1. The instant petition warrants outright dismissal for failure of the

“SEC. 4. When and where petition filed.—The petition may be

The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to

2. Paragraph II of petitioners’ petition state that:

“On October 2011, petitioner received a copy of the LA

3. The notice denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was received by

4. As provided for by law and existing jurisprudence, the 60 day prescriptive

5. In addition to the above, the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration to the

“Section 15. MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION. –

6. As mentioned in Paragraph II of the petition. Petitioners’ received on

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed unto this Honorable appellate

interest of fair play and social justice.

Respectfully submitted this 5th day of July 2012 in Baguio City.

BASA BALAGTEY LAW OFFICES

You might also like