Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
Lagawe, Ifugao

RHIZZA C. DE GUZMAN, I.S No. II-08-INV-23K-

3457
Complainant-Appellee,
FOR:
- versus –

ROXANNE JOY MONTESA BUENO Violation of RA 10175

Respondent (on Cyber Libel) and
RA 10173 (Data
Privacy Act of
2012)
x----------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant-Appellant RHIZZA C. DE GUZMAN,

respectfully states:

1. On 12 February 2024, RHIZZA C. DE GUZMAN received

the Resolution dated 22 December 2023 dismissing her Complaint
against ROXANNE JOY MONTESA BUENO dated 31 August 2023 for
lack of probable cause, to wit:

xxx xxx xxx

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully
recommended that the instant complaint be
DISMISSED for lack of probable cause.

xxx xxx xxx

2. Hence, RHIZZA C. DE GUZMAN has fifteen (15) days or

until 4 March 2024 to move for a reconsideration. RHIZZA C. DE
GUZMAN respectfully moves for a reconsideration of the foregoing
Resolution based on the following grounds:

I
 WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HEREIN CASE
SATISFIES ALL THE ELEMENTS OF LIBEL.

DISCUSSION

3. In the assailed Resolution, the Prosecutor laid down the

elements of Cyber libel based on Sec. 4 (c ) of RA 10175, in relation to
Article 353 and 355 of the Revised Penal Code:
a. There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status,
or circumstance;
b. The imputation must be made publicly;
c. The imputation must be malicious, which means that the
author of the libelous post made such post with knowledge that
it was false, or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity
thereof. (Yunchengco vs. The Manila Chronicle Publishing
Corporation, G.R. No. 184315, 25 November 2009.)
d. The person is identifiable;
e. The imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or
contempt of the person defamed. (Reyes, Luis B., Revised Penal
Code, Fifteenth Edition, 2001, page 932.)
f. The imputation was done through the use of a computer
system or any other similar means which may be devised in the
future. (Sec. 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175)

4. The undersigned profusely apologizes for the apparent

misunderstanding of the circumstances surrounding TSCC’s receipt of
the Decision and begs the Honorable Commission to accept its
plausible or justifiable explanation for stating that its receipt of the
Decision was on 22 August 2023.

I. THE RUNNING OF THE

REGLEMENTARY PERIOD TO FILE
THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
SHOULD BE RECKONED FROM 22
AUGUST 2023 - THE DAY TSCC’S
REPRESENTATIVE ACTUALLY
RECEIVED THE ASSAILED
DECISION DATED 25 JULY 2023.

5. The representative of TSCC in the captioned case is Aloha

Maravilla, Human Resources (HR) Supervisor. As part of the
administrative office of TSCC, her work is only from Monday to
Friday and she has no work on Saturday, Sunday and public holidays.
TSCC has secured the services of a third-party security agency which
deploys security guards in the office on weekends and holidays to
only monitor the ingress and egress of the construction field
personnel and equipment in TSCC’s yard.

6. The security guard assigned to the TSCC yard has no

authority to receive the Decision and was only in TSCC premises to
record the movement of construction field personnel and equipment
on non-working days.

7. The copy of the assailed Decision was delivered by LBC to

the security guard assigned to the TSCC yard on 19 August 2023,
which was a Saturday and at which day, Ms. Maravilla was not at
work as the administrative office of TSCC was closed. Despite the
advise of the security guard to the LBC employee about such fact, the
Decision was left with the security guard with an instruction to deliver
the same to Ms. Maravilla.

8. The next two days, however, or 20 and 21 August 2023

were also non-working days being a Sunday and a national non-
working holiday or Ninoy Aquino Day, respectively.

9. Hence, the Decision was delivered to Ms. Maravilla on the

next working day of TSCC’s administrative office on 22 August 2023
whereon Aloha Maravilla, the duly authorized representative of TSCC
in the captioned case, actually received the copy of the assailed
Decision and believed that the same was delivered also on the same
day.1

10. With all due respect, under the foregoing circumstances,

TSCC’s receipt of the Decision should be reckoned from 22 August
2023 – the date of its representative’s actual receipt of the Decision, and
not 19 August 2023 – the date the LBC employee delivered the

1
Affidavit of Receipt of the Notice of Decision 25 July 2023 of Aloha Maravilla is attached and
marked hereto as ANNEX “A.”
Decision to a mere security guard assigned to TSCC who had no
authority to receive the same.

Receipt by the security guard is not receipt by TSCC:

11. Rule III of the NLRC Rules of Procedure on the service of

notices, resolutions, orders and decisions state:

SECTION 4. SERVICE OF NOTICES, RESOLUTIONS,

ORDERS AND DECISIONS. - a) Notices and copies of
resolutions or orders, shall be served personally upon the
parties by the bailiff or duly authorized public officer
within three (3) days from his/her receipt thereof or by
registered mail or by private courier;

b) In case of decisions and final awards, copies thereof

shall be served on both parties and their counsel or
representative by registered mail or by private courier;
Provided that, in cases where a party to a case or his/her
counsel on record personally seeks service of the decision
upon inquiry thereon, service to said party shall be
deemed effected as herein provided. Where parties are
numerous, service shall be made on counsel and upon
such number of complainants, as may be practicable and
shall be considered substantial compliance with Article
224 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended.

For purposes of appeal, the period shall be counted from

receipt of such decisions, resolutions, or orders by the
counsel or representative of record. (Emphasis supplied)

12. In this case, TSCC humbly submits that the Decision

cannot be considered “served” upon TSCC on 19 August 2023 because
on the said date the TSCC administrative office was closed. The mere
receipt of the security guard is not binding on TSCC since the
representative of TSCC in this case is Aloha Maravilla, its HR
Supervisor, and not the security guard in TSCC’s yard. The security
guard assigned in TSCC is not its representative and had no authority
to receive the same for and on behalf of TSCC. The Decision cannot be
deemed served upon receipt by a stranger to this case. It can only be
deemed effective and completed upon actual receipt by TSCC’s
representative of the Decision on 22 August 2023.
 13. In PLDT vs. NLRC,2 the Supreme Court has ruled that to
be a valid service of a notice of a decision, the same must be delivered
to the exact address of the representative of the party and not served
on a person not the party or employed by the party:

The bailiff, instead of serving the notice of the decision at

the lawyer on the ninth floor which is clearly indicated in
the notice of decision, left the notice at the ground floor of
the petitioner's main building. We have held time and
again that notices to counsel should properly be sent to
the address of record in the absence of due notice to the
court of change of address (Phil. Suburban Dev. Corp. vs.
Court of Appeals, 100 SCRA 109). Hence, practical
considerations and the realities of the situation dictate
that the service made by the bailiff on March 23, 1981 at
the ground floor of the petitioner's building and not at the
address of record of petitioner's counsel on record at the
9th floor of the PLDT building cannot be considered a
valid service. It was only when the Legal Services
Division actually received a copy of the decision on
March 26, 1981 that a proper and valid service may be
deemed to have been made.

14. Hence, when TSCC engaged the services of the

undersigned on 29 August 2023, the undersigned prepared the
Memorandum of Appeal dated 31 August 2023, acting on the HR
Supervisor Aloha Maravilla’s honest representation that TSCC
received the Decision on 22 August 2023 and, thus, had ten (10) days
from said notice, or until 4 September 2023, 3 within which to file
TSCC’s Memorandum of Appeal. On 4 September 2023, TSCC’s
Memorandum of Appeal was filed before the Honorable Commission.

II. WITH DUE RESPECT, THE

PURPORTED DELAY IN THE FILING
OF THE APPEAL IS EXCUSABLE.
THUS, TSCC’S APPEAL SHOULD BE

2
G.R. No. L-60050, 128 SCRA 402 (1984).
3
With the issuance of the Office of the President Memorandum Circular No. 30 dated 31 August
2023 suspending work in all government offices in National Capital Region (NCR) on 1
September 2023 due to massive flooding, the due date for filing the Memorandum of Appeal has
been moved to 04 September 2023, the next working day of the Honorable Commission.
REINSTATED AS IT IS ANCHORED
ON STRONG AND MERITORIOUS
GROUNDS.

15. Even assuming that under the circumstances in which the

Decision was delivered, 19 August 2023 would remain as the date of
TSCC receipt of the said Decision, TSCC implores the Honorable
Commission to consider the circumstances as pardonable and
reinstate the appeal of TSCC.

16. In Chronicles Securities Corporation v. NLRC,4 the Supreme

Court ruled that in not a few instances, we relaxed the rigid
application of the rules of procedure to afford the parties the
opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. This is in
line with the time-honored principle that cases should be decided
only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and
defenses. Technicalities and procedural imperfections should thus
not serve as bases of decisions. In that way, the ends of justice would
be better served. For indeed, the general objective of procedure is to
facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending
parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to
promote administration of justice.

17. In Republic v. Court of Appeals,5 the Supreme Court

ordered the Court of Appeals to entertain an appeal filed six days
after the expiration of the reglementary period; while in Siguenza v.
Court of Appeals,6 the Supreme Court accepted an appeal filed thirteen
days late. Likewise, in Olacao v. NLRC,7 the Honorable Commission's
order giving due course to a tardy appeal "to forestall the grant of
separation pay twice" since the issue of separation pay had been
judicially settled with finality in another case was affirmed. All of the
aforequoted rulings were reiterated in the 2001 decision in the case of
Equitable PCI Bank v. Ku.8

18. In the same vein, TSCC respectfully invites the full

attention of the Honorable Commission to the existence of newly
discovered evidence consisting of the following Project Employment
Agreements cited in its Memorandum of Appeal that would clarify the

4
G.R. No. 157907, 25 November 2004.
5
G.R. Nos. L-3130304, 31 May 1978, 83 SCRA 453.
6
G.R. No. L-44050, 16 July 1985, 137 SCRA 570.
7
G.R. No. 81390, 29 August 1989, 177 SCRA 38.
8
G.R. No. 142950, 26 March 2001, 355 SCRA 309.
status of Mr. Quiroz as a project employee and not a regular employee
of the Corporation, as ruled upon by the Labor Arbiter:

Employment Agreement dated 11 May 2017, for the project of

4B Construction Corporation commencing on 11 May 2017 up
to 17 August 2017;9

Employment Agreement dated 18 August 2017, for the project

of 4B Construction Corporation commencing on 17 August
2017 up to 14 December 2017;10

Employment Agreement dated 3 January 2018, for the project of

Makati, EEI, St. Gerald and C.M. Pancho commencing on 3
January 2018 up to 31 May 2018;11

Employment Agreement dated 7 March 2020, for the project of

Warehouse-Other Project commencing on 7 March 2020 up to
31 March 2020;12

Employment Agreement dated 29 July 2020, for the project of

San Mateo, Rizal commencing on 1 August 2020 up to 30
September 2020;13

Employment Agreement dated 23 November 2020, for the

project of Supply and Installation of Streetlights at San Rafael
III & San Rafael IV, Noveleta, Cavite of Municipality of
Noveleta, Cavite commencing on 23 November 2020 up to 23
March 2021.14

Employment Agreement dated 22 March 2021, for the project of

Roadmarkers Int’l Inc (Batching for Stocks/South City
Hospital), Warehouse Fabrication, Projects for NLEX
Corp./Filinvest/Makati commencing on 24 March 2021 to 31
March 2021.15

9
Copy attached to the TSCC’s Memorandum of Appeal as ANNEX “C.”
10
Id., copy attached as ANNEX “C-1.”
11
Id., copy attached as ANNEX “C-2.”
12
Id., copy attached as ANNEX “C-3.”
13
Id., copy attached as ANNEX “C-4.”
14
Id., copy attached as ANNEX “C-4.” See also Annex “B” of the Corporation’s Position Paper
dated 27 December 2022.
15
Id., copy attached as ANNEX “C-5.” See also Annex “B” of the Corporation’s Position Paper
dated 27 December 2022.
 19. Applying the relevant law and jurisprudence on the
matter, the Decision dated 25 July 2023 should be reversed as these
Project Employment Agreements, if taken into consideration, would
effectively negate the Labor Arbiter’s finding that TSCC illegally
dismissed Mr. Quiroz because he was lawfully terminated due to
completion or termination of a project for which he was engaged as a
project employee. Thus, the award of backwages and separation pay
to the complainant-appellee have consequently no basis in fact and in
law. If these Project Employment Agreements and pertinent law and
jurisprudence are not considered, the same would cause grave and
irreparable injury to TSCC and would be unjust and unfair.

20. Verily, the Honorable Commission's dismissal of TSCC's

appeal in this case for being filed out of time deserves to be
reconsidered as there are valid reasons for not being able to timely file
the same and strong and meritorious grounds to reverse the Decision
of the Labor Arbiter.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed that the Resolution dated 23 October 2023 of the First Division
of the National Labor Relations Commission in the captioned case be
RECONSIDERED and that the Memorandum of Appeal dated 31
August 2023 be REINSTATED and RESOLVED on the merits.

Other reliefs, just or equitable under the premises, are likewise

prayed for.

Makati City for Quezon City, 3 November 2023.

DENNIS P. MANALO LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Respondent-Appellant
2nd Floor, S&L Building
Dela Rosa cor. Esteban Sts.
Legaspi Village, Makati City
Tel. No. 893.80.25
Email: dpm@dennislaw.net

By:

DENNIS P. MANALO
 Roll No. 40950/04.12.96
IBP No. 012869-Life/06.10.14/Makati
PTR No. 9568262/01.05.23/Makati
MCLE Comp. No. VII-0007751/12.12.21
Email: dpm@dennislaw.net

EMMIR LLOYD B. DAPILLOZA

Roll No. 85276/05.02.23
IBP No. 341058/05.08.23/Pangasinan
PTR No. 1518059/05.16.23/Caloocan
MCLE Comp. No. Admitted on 05.02.23
Email: elbd.dpmlaw@gmail.com

COPY FURNISHED:
(with Affidavit of Service)

ATTY. MARK OLIVER C. ASIS

Counsel for Complainant-Appellee
Public Attorney’s Office
6/F, Justice Cecilia Munoz Palma Hall
Quezon City Hall Complex
Diliman, Quezon City

MR. GERARDO PEREZ QUIROZ

Complainant
177 Barrio Sta. Rita South
Brgy. 188 Zone 16 Caloocan City

EXPLANATION OF SERVICE

Copies of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration were served

through registered mail by reason of distance, time constraint, and
lack of personnel to effect personal service.

EMMIR LLOYD B. DAPILLOZ