Non-binding error

As a general rule, the negligence or mistake of counsel binds the client. This is a rule designed to facilitate the attainment of justice by putting an end to litigations and preventing parties from further prolonging a case by hiring new lawyers who can simply allege and show that the former counsel has not been sufficiently diligent, experienced or learned. But when this rule deserts its proper office as an aid to justice, it can be disregarded. The proper guide should always be to give a party "the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his action or defense rather than for him to lose life, honor or property on mere technicalities" (Apex Mining vs. Court of Appeals 319 SCRA 456). This exception is illustrated in this case of EFC Inc. a corporation engaged in agri-business, and its majority owner, Doña Clara.

The case had its roots in an illegal dismissal case filed by 144 complainants against EFC, Doña Clara, another corporation and its two other owners. Of the 144 complainants only 28 submitted their affidavits and evidence of employment. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of the 28 employees and granted them separation pay of P2,235.62 each. But the NLRC on appeal modified the Labor Arbiter‚s decision by also awarding moral damages to each complainant for all their troubles and sufferings. Then later on the NLRC further modified its ruling by absolving the other corporation and its owners and holding only EFC and Doña Clara liable for separation pay, moral and exemplary damages. The NLRC also increased the number of awardees from 28 to 131 based on the list of remitted SSS contributions.

EFC and Doña Clara questioned this NLRC ruling by filing two separate petitions for certiorari with the Supreme Court (SC) under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court through different counsels within a span of one month. The first petition was dismissed with finality for failure to file it within the granted extension period. The second petition filed by a new counsel after the other counsel withdrew from the case, was given due course. In this second petition, the SC required the payment of deposit for cost and the submission of memoranda by both parties. However the SC resolution was not sent to the counsel‚s address as expressly stated in the petition but to the counsel‚s former address when the case was still with the NLRC. Thus neither EFC and Doña Clara or their counsel were able to comply with the said resolution resulting again in the dismissal of the second petition for certiorari. The resolution of dismissal was likewise sent to the wrong address.

With the dismissal of the certiorari, the NLRC decision attained finality. This prompted EFC and Doña Clara to ask for a stay of its execution on the ground that it is of absolute nullity. Subsequently, they also filed a petition for annulment of said NLRC judgment with the Court of Appeals (CA). But the CA dismissed their petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Was the CA correct?

Yes.

The CA has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition for annulment of a final and executory judgment of the NLRC. Section 9 BP 129 only vests in the CA, "exclusive jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of the Regional Trial Courts". Besides, annulment of judgment is allowed only where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of EFC and Doña Clara. In this case, they were well aware that they had the available remedy of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. In fact they twice sought recourse with the SC via petitions for certiorari but both petitions were dismissed.

The two petitions earlier filed by EFC and Doña Clara and their petition for annulment of judgment filed before the CA amount to a repetitive availment of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely by some other court. It is an act of malpractice that is prohibited and condemned as trifling with the courts and abusing their processes. This is known as forum shopping.

But the erroneous move of EFC and Doña Clara‚s counsel in instituting the petition for annulment of judgment before the CA instead of zealously pursuing their second petition for certiorari, should not bind them because they appear to have legitimate grievances. The resolution of the NLRC increasing the number of awardees from 28 to 131 which was apparently based only on the list of remitted SSS contribution when it is an undisputed fact that only 28 employees submitted their affidavits and evidence of employment before the labor arbiter are matters of serious concern. Besides the service of the resolution dismissing the second petition for certiorari at counsel‚s old address, when he did not give it to the court as his address for the particular case in which he entered his appearance, cannot be considered a valid service. Such concerns are proper questions for resolution in the second petition for certiorari which may be revived to give EFC and Doña Clara the opportunity to present their case. (Elcee Farms Inc. and Saguemuller vs. Semillano et al. G.R. 150286 October 17, 2003)

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]