REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

Sirs:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a Resolution of this Court (FIFTH

DIVISION) dated September 13, 2022:

CA-G.R. SP No. 175067 – JMOR CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, ET AL. vs.

NLRC, ET AL.

“The present Petition for Certiorari (with Application for

Temporary Restraining Order / Writ of Preliminary Injunction) filed by
counsel for petitioners seeks to nullify the following: (1) NLRC Decision
dated January 31, 2020; (b) Resolution dated September 30, 2020
denying the Motion for Reconsideration; (3) Writ of Execution; and (4)
Demand Letter dated August 8, 2022 issued by the NLRC Sheriff.

However, petitioners failed to state the date of receipt of the

September 30, 2020 Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration;
thus, the timeliness of the filing of the instant petition assailing the
NLRC Decision and Resolution cannot be determined with certainty.
Petitioners though assert that their former counsel advised them not to
appeal the case upon release of said Resolution (Petition, par. 41, p. 9).
Thus, it can be fairly inferred therefrom that the period to file a petition
for certiorari before this Court already lapsed without a timely appeal
and/or petition having been filed. In fact, this failure to seasonably
appeal (which petitioners attribute to the negligence and mistake of
counsel) rendered the assailed decision and resolution final and
executory thereby resulting in the issuance of the writ of execution and
demand letter which are also being assailed herein.

Incidentally, in challenging the writ of execution issued by the

labor arbiter and sheriff's demand letter anchored on 'gross and
palpable negligence of counsel and of extrinsic fraud' (rollo, p. 11),
grounds for which extraordinary remedies under the NLRC Rules of
Procedure are provided an aggrieved party, petitioners had an
opportunity to nullify the same before the National Labor Relations
Commission. Instead, petitioners instituted the instant petition for
certiorari beyond the 60-day reglementary period under Rule 65 to file
the same (upon receipt of the September 30, 2020 Resolution) thereby
depriving this Court of jurisdiction.

Moreover, the petition suffers from the following procedural

defects:
1. no proof of service upon private respondents and/or NLRC
was attached; and
2. no Affidavit of Service accompanied the petition.

All the foregoing considered, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS

the petition outright.”

(Per Agendum dated September 7, 2022)

WITNESS the Honorable APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR., Chairman,

Honorable RONALDO ROBERTO B. MARTIN, and Honorable ALFONSO C. RUIZ II,
Members, this 13th day of September, 2022.
 Very truly yours,

ATTY. CELEDONIA M. OGSIMER

Division Clerk of Court

Copy Furnished :

Atty . Ramil Joselito B. Tamayo – reg w/ rc

Sarmiento Tamayo & Bulawan Law Offices
counsel for petitioners
Suite 29, 3/F Legaspi Towers 300,
2600 Roxas Boulevard cor. P. Ocampo St., Malate,
1004 Manila

Galon & Partners Law Office – reg w/ rc

counsel for private respondents
Unit 10, 2nd Floor, Kaminari Bldg.,
Banaue Avenue, Barangay Lourdes,
1114 Quezon City

National Labor Relations Commission – reg w/ rc

5/F BENLOR Bldg., 1184 Quezon Ave.,
1100 Quezon City

Ofc. Of J. Ruiz-per
Reporter's Division-per
//kel