G.R. NO. 164871 - TRUST INTERNATIONAL PAPER CORPORATION, VS. MARILOU R. PELAEZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered DISMISSING the complaint for lack of merit. [3] On 5 July 2002, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the NLRC denied in a Resolution dated 31 July 2002. Unfazed with the setback, respondent filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals arguing that grave abuse of discretion was committed by the NLRC in setting aside the Labor Arbiter's Decision despite having been duly supported by the facts and the law. In due time, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision in favor of respondent on the ground that respondent's dismissal due to redundancy did not meet the requirements of law; hence, the same was illegal. The Court of Appeals decreed: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The decision of public respondent NLRC in NLRC NCR CA No. 021691-99, as well as its subsequent resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration, are hereby ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE and the decision of the labor arbiter a quo REINSTATED. [4] The Decision of the Court of Appeals became final and executory as no appeal or motion for reconsideration was filed by either party. Hence, on 25 July 2003, an Entry of Judgment was issued by the Court of Appeals. On 29 December 2003, petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment with the Court of Appeals. Petitioner anchored its petition on the "excusable negligence" of its counsel Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako's (Siguion Reyna) law firm and the gross negligence of Atty. Elena C. Cardinez (Atty. Cardinez), a newly hired junior associate of the Siguion Reyna law firm, who allegedly handled the case for petitioner. Petitioner revealed that the instant case was assigned to Atty. Cardinez in June 2003 and that all notices, orders and legal processes in connection with the instant case were immediately forwarded to her for appropriate action. Petitioner contended that the Siguion Reyna law firm was never remiss in its duty to follow up the status of the case with Atty. Cardinez. In fact, it was the law firm itself, through Atty. Cardinez's supervising lawyers and co-counsels, Attys. Carla E. Santamaria-Seña, Cheryll Ann L. Peña and Rean Mayo D. Javier, who had to elicit reports from her. When asked about the developments of the case, Atty. Cardinez supposedly informed the law firm that everything was in order regarding petitioner's defense, when in fact, it was not. Eventually, Atty. Cardinez never reported to work and that she was nowhere to be found despite the law firm's diligent efforts to search for her. She did not turn over the case files in her possession, including the Court of Appeals file folders of the instant case. Petitioner maintained that the acts of Atty. Cardinez in misrepresenting to the law firm that everything was in order regarding its defense, when in fact, it was not, and the fact that she took the files with h