805 Phil. 853
BERSAMIN, J.:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and hereby orders the defendant as his personal liability, to pay plaintiff the following sums, to wit:1. Php 260,000.00 representing the lost income which he could have earned if he was to finish his contractual employment as actual damages;
2. Php 500,000.00 as moral damages;
3. Php 300,000.00 as exemplary damages;
4. Php 100,000.00 for and as attorney's fees; and,
5. Costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.[12]
x x x x
The defendant timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Honorable Court's Decision dated December 28, 2001. On September 30, 2008, this Honorable Court issued an Order denying defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. The OSG, however, was able to get a copy of said Order only on September 15, 2011 when it procured a copy of the Order at the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 96. Attached herewith as Annex "A" is the Affidavit of Nilo Odilon L. Palestroque, Chief Administrative Officer of the Civil Cases Division, OSG Docket Management Service attesting to the fact that the OSG got hold of the trial court's Order only on September 15, 2011.
x x x x.
Filed pursuant to Rule 65 of the 1977 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the instant petition for certiorari seeks the nullification and setting aside of the October 11, 2011 Order issued by public respondent, the Hon. Afable E. Cajigal in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 96, in Civil Case No. Q-01-45778, which denied petitioner's September 30, 2011 Notice of Appeal.
A perusal of the petition shows the following infirmities which warrant its outright dismissal.
First, the petition docs not state the date of issue of petitioner's counsel's Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Certificate of Compliance, as required under Bar Matter No. 1922, dated June 3, 2008.
Second, petitioner's counsel's PTR number is not current.
Third, the actual addresses of the parties are not stated in the petition, in violation of Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE and accordingly DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
This treats of petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Court's January 31, 2012 Resolution which dismissed the instant petition for certiorari due to a number of procedural infirmities. Contending that the procedural defects have been rectified, petitioner now seeks an opportunity to have the case resolved on its worth.
We deny the motion.
Despite the rectification of its procedural defects, a perusal of the petition shows that it must fail just the same for lack of prima facie merit. In certiorari proceedings under Rule 65, the inquiry is essentially confined to issues of want or excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondent. A circumspect perusal of this petition yielded no showing of any grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondent judge in issuing the assailed October 11, 2011 Order which dismissed petitioner's September 30, 2011 Notice of Appeal for having been filed way out of time. Petitioner failed to disprove the records of the RTC which show that his counsel, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), received the September 30, 2008 Order denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration on October 16, 2008. Thus petitioner's Notice of Appeal filed 1,125 days thereafter is clearly out of time. In the absence of clear and convincing proof to the contrary, greater credence should be accorded the RTC as it enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of its official duties.
As to the September 22, 2011 Affidavit of the Chief, Civil Cases Division, Docket Management Service (DMS) of the OSG, the same will not save the day for petitioner. In justifying that copy of the September 30, 2008 Order was "officially" received only on September 15, 2011, the OSG essentially relied on the entries in its Docket and document tracking system without supplementing the same with periodic inquiries before the RTC. It is the duty of the party and his counsel to device a system for the receipt of mail intended for them, and matters internal to the clients and their counsels, like those narrated in the affidavit, are not the concern of this Court.
Finally, even conceding that a counsel has the obligation to inform his client of the material developments in the case, this obligation is balanced by a complementary duty on the part of a party-litigant to remain in contact with his lawyer in order to be informed of the progress of the case, more so that courts are not duty-bound to warn him against any possible procedural blunder. Litigants, represented by counsel should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of their case. As what is at stake is his interest in the case, it is the responsibility of petitioner to check its status from time to time from his counsel or from the court.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's motion for reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
- Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals, in arriving [at] its decision and resolution, decided the case in accordance with law and existing jurisprudence:
- considering that findings and admonitions of the Honorable Court [of Appeals] are at war with the facts and the law obtaining in this case, thus legally reversible;
- Considering likewise that the September 30, 2011 Notice of Appeal was timely filed; and
- private respondent Jose Ramirez as Executive Assistant, a confidential and conterminous [sic] employees [sic] ended his term as co-term employee with the resigned Chairman and was not illegally terminated;
- Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abused [sic] of discretion in not declaring that the RTC has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the instant civil service related case, which is under the sole jurisdiction of the CSC.[20]
COMPLAINT
(With Provisional Remedy)
Plaintiff, by and through the undersigned counsel, to this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges that:
x x x xIII
Plaintiff was appointed as Executive Assistant III, on contractual basis by then Chairman Eufemio Domingo of the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption, effective September 3, 2001, x x xIV
On September 17, 2001, plaintiff was designated as Assistant Accountant, x x xV
Since the appointment is contractual and no period was stated, it is clearly understood that the term is for a period of one (1) year from September 3, 2001 and subject to renewal, pursuant to Memorandum Circular No. 38 issued by the Civil Service Commission.VI
On or about September 20, 2001, Chairman Eufemio Domingo resigned as Chairman and the defendant was appointed as the new Chairman of the Presidential Commission Against Graft and CorruptionVII
On September 28, 2001, without due process and notice, the defendant, without cause and with grave abuse of discretion, capriciously, whimsically and illegally terminated the services of the plaintiff, in violation of the Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 38.VIII
Plaintiff is a Certified Public Accountant and a First Grade Civil Service eligible, hence very much qualified for the job. His appointment is not co-terminus with the term of Chairman Domingo as can be gleaned from his job description, x x xIX
The termination of plaintiff's services is not even supported by any written notice to the herein plaintiff, stating therein the reasons for his termination, but was done in an orthodox manner, by merely preventing the plaintiff to report for work
x x x xXI
Finally, on November 23, 2001, copy of a service record signed by Jose Sonny G. Matala, Executive Director dated November 20, 2001, was given to the plaintiff embodying the cause of separation which states""Co-terminus with Chairman Domingo being personal and confidential staff xx xx xx."
x x x xXII
The termination of plaintiff by the defendant is illegal and violative of due process as plaintiff's appointment as contractual employee will expire or September 3, 2002 only.XIII
Defendant, being a lawyer and formerly connected with the Civil Service Commission, is aware of the law that contractual employment without a definite period is presumed to be for one (1) year pursuant to Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 38.
x x x xXVI
The filing of this case in court is not violative of the Rule on Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies, as there are several exceptions in the exhaustion of administrative remedies enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Paat vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 167, such as:
(1) when there is a violation of due process; (2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question; (3) when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction; (4) xx xx xx xx xxx; (5) when there is irreparable injury; (6) xx xx xx xx xxx; (7) when to require exhaustion of remedies would be unreasonable; (8) xx xx xx xx xxx; (9) xx xx xx xx xxx; (10) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy; and (11) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial interventionXVII
The illegal act of the defendant of terminating plaintiff's services in violation of the latter's right to security of tenure and due process has caused plaintiff to suffer moral shock, anxiety, besmirched reputation, sleepless nights, social humiliation, embarrassment and similar injuries, thereby entitling him to recover damages from the defendant in the amount of no less than P500,000.00x x x xALLEGATION IN SUPPORT OF THE PRAYER FOR THE IMMEDIATE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MANDATORY
x x x xXXII
Irreparable injury has been caused and continue to cause plaintiff, hence, the necessity of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, ordering the defendant to reinstate the plaintiff, while this case is being heard
x x x x
PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to render judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant by:
BEFORE HEARING ON THE MERITS
ORDERING the immediate issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, COMMANDING the defendant to reinstate immediately the plaintiff to his previous position
AFTER HEARING ON THE MERITS
1. DECLARING the Preliminary Mandatory Injunction as PERMANENT;
2. DECLARING the DISMISSAL of the plaintiff as illegal and violative of plaintiff's right to due process and security of tenure;
3. x x x x[22]
Section 12. Powers and Functions. - The Commission shall have the following powers and functions:
x x x x
(5) Render opinion and rulings on all personnel and other Civil Service matters which shall be binding on all heads of departments, offices and agencies and which may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari;
x x x x
(11) Hear and decide administrative cases instituted by or brought before it directly or on appeal, including contested appointments, and review decisions and actions of its offices and of the agencies attached to it. Officials and employees who fail to comply with such decisions, orders, or rulings shall be liable for contempt of the Commission. Its decisions, orders, or rulings shall be final and executory. Such decisions, orders, or rulings may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy thereof;
x x x x