FACTS: Petitioner was employed by PCBCP, they were later absorbed by PCDPI then PCPPI when the companies were all sold one after the other. He claims that he was dismissed without any valid legal cause then his office was padlocked to prevent him from entering, PCPPI alleges that he was continually absent without explaining why so they had to lock the office because the office contained many confidential documents. The LA dismissed the complaint. Then Curaza filed a manifestation that he be counsel along with his attorney. On appeal, the NLRC dismissed the petition. 3 months later, Curaza filed his motion for reconsideration, which was denied for being filed beyond the 10 day period. He now argues that he only received the notice of the decision a few days before he filed his motion and since he is also counsel he is entitled to notice ands that the 10 day period starts from when he received the notice.
ISSUE: W/N he is entitled to notice and when does the 10 day period start.
HELD: The SC ruled that Curaza is not entitled to notice. He was still represented by his lawyer and since the NLRC rules of procedure have no specific rule, the Rules of Court apply apparently and it provides that where a person is represented by more than one counsel, service upon one is considered service to all unless personal notice is ordered by the Court. Also since his lawyer received the notice 3 months earlier the 10 day period starts from the date. The NLRC rules of procedures provide that notices of decisions shall be served upon the counsel of record. The failure of the council binds the client and is not a ground for setting aside a judgment that is valid and regular on its face.
0 comments:
Post a Comment