Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Livesey vs. Binswanger Phils., Inc. (2014)
Livesey vs. Binswanger Phils., Inc. (2014)
*
ERIC GODFREY STANLEY LIVESEY, petitioner, vs.
BINSWANGER PHILIPPINES, INC. and KEITH ELLIOT,
respondents.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
434
BRION, J.:
We resolve this petition for review on certiorari[1]
assailing
_______________
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-44; filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
435
the decision[2] dated August 18, 2006 and the resolution[3]
dated March 29, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. SP No. 94461.
The Antecedents
In December 2001, petitioner Eric Godfrey Stanley
Livesey filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money
claims[4] against CBB Philippines Strategic Property
Services, Inc. (CBB) and Paul Dwyer. CBB was a domestic
corporation engaged in real estate brokerage and Dwyer
was its President.
Livesey alleged that on April 12, 2001, CBB hired him
as Director and Head of Business Space Development, with
a monthly salary of US$5,000.00; shareholdings in CBBÊs
offshore parent company; and other benefits. In August
2001, he was appointed as Managing Director and his
salary was increased to US$16,000.00 a month. Allegedly,
despite the several deals for CBB he drew up, CBB failed to
pay him a significant portion of his salary. For this reason,
he was compelled to resign on December 18, 2001. He
claimed CBB owed him US$23,000.00 in unpaid salaries.
CBB denied liability. It alleged that it engaged Livesey
as a corporate officer in April 2001: he was elected Vice-
President (with a salary of P75,000.00/month), and
thereafter, he became President (at P1,200,000.00/year). It
claimed that Livesey was later designated as Managing
Director when it became an extension office of its principal
in Hongkong.[5]
_______________
[2] Id., at pp. 49-61; penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. de
Leon, and concurred in by Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and
Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr.
[3] Id., at pp. 513-514.
[4] Id., at p. 98.
[5] Id., at p. 89.
436
_______________
[6] Id., at pp. 455-465.
[7] Id., at pp. 537-539.
[8] Id., at p. 540.
437
_______________
[9] Id., at pp. 542-543.
[10] Id., at pp. 544-551.
[11] Id., at p. 545.
[12] Id., at p. 546.
[13] Id., at pp. 492-496.
[14] Id., at pp. 74-85; penned by Commissioner Angelita A. Gacutan,
and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino and
Commissioner Victoriano R. Calaycay.
438
_______________
[15] Supra note 6.
[16] Rollo, pp. 88-95.
[17] Id., at pp. 86-87.
439
The CA Decision
_______________
[18] Supra note 2.
[19] Supra note 14.
[20] Supra note 13.
[21] Supra note 3.
440
The Petition
Livesey prays for a reversal of the CA rulings on the
basis of the following arguments:
1. The CA erred in not denying the respondentsÊ
petition for certiorari dated May 12, 2006 for being filed out
of time.
Livesey assails the CAÊs reliance on the CourtÊs
pronouncement in Rinconada Telephone Co., Inc. v. Hon.
Buenviaje[22] to justify its ruling that the receipt on March
17, 2006 by Atty. Jacosalem of the NLRCÊs denial of the
respondentsÊ motion for reconsideration was the reckoning
date for the filing of the petition for certiorari, not the
receipt of a copy of the same resolution on January 19,
2006 by the respondentsÊ counsel of record, the Corporate
Counsels Philippines, Law Offices. The cited CourtÊs
pronouncement reads:
_______________
[22] 263 Phil. 654; 184 SCRA 701 (1990).
[23] Id., at p. 660; p. 706.
441
_______________
[24] Rollo, p. 62.
[25] Id., at p. 842; Corporate Counsels Philippines, Law Offices filed
its notice of withdrawal as the respondentsÊ counsel only on April 28,
2006.
[26] Id., at p. 449; Internal Memo dated December 21, 2001 from
Livesey to Lina Serra.
[27] Id., at pp. 580-584.
442
Manila, Philippines
CBB Philippines
Unit 509, 5th Floor
Peninsula Court, Paseo de Roxas corner
Makati Avenue
1226 Makati City
Philippines
Contact: Keith Elliot
_______________
[28] Id., at p. 761.
[29] Id., at p. 592.
[30] Id., at p. 593.
[31] Id., at p. 594.
[32] Id., at pp. 595-597.
443
444
_______________
[37] 226 Phil. 199; 142 SCRA 269 (1986).
[38] Rollo, pp. 940-945; filed on October 15, 2007.
[39] Id., at pp. 1054-1066; dated May 15, 2008.
445
446
65 of the Rules of Court should have been counted from
January 19, 2006, the date of receipt of a copy of the NLRC
resolution denying the respondentsÊ motion for
reconsideration by the Corporate Counsels Philippines,
Law Offices which was the respondentsÊ counsel of record
at the time. The respondents cannot insist that Atty.
JacosalemÊs receipt of a copy of the resolution on March 17,
2006 as the reckoning date for the filing of the petition as
we shall discuss below.
The CA chided the NLRC for serving a copy of the
resolution on the Corporate Counsels Philippines, Law
Offices, instead of on Atty. Jacosalem as it believed that the
labor tribunal impliedly recognized Atty. Jacosalem as the
respondentsÊ counsel when it acted on the motion for
reconsideration that he signed. As we see it, the fault was
not on the NLRC but on Atty. Jacosalem himself as he left
no forwarding address with the NLRC, a serious lapse that
even he admitted.[40] This is a matter that cannot just be
taken for granted as it betrays a careless legal
representation that can cause adverse consequences to the
other party.
To our mind, Atty. JacosalemÊs non-observance of a
simple, but basic requirement in the practice of law lends
credence to LiveseyÊs claim that the lawyer did not formally
enter his appearance before the NLRC as the respondentsÊ
new counsel; if it had been otherwise, he would have
supplied his office address to the NLRC. Also, had he
exercised due diligence in the performance of his duty as
counsel, he could have inquired earlier with the NLRC and
should not have waited as late as March 17, 2006 about the
outcome of the respondentsÊ motion for reconsideration
which was filed as early as October 28, 2005.
To reiterate, the filing of the respondentsÊ petition for
certiorari should have been reckoned from January 19,
2006 when a copy of the subject NLRC resolution was
received by the Corporate Counsels Philippines, Law
Offices, which, as of
_______________
[40] Id., at pp. 941-942.
447
that date, had not been discharged or had withdrawn and
therefore remained to be the respondentsÊ counsel of record.
Clearly, the petition for certiorari was filed out of time.
Section 6(a), Rule III of the NLRC Revised Rules of
Procedure provides that „[f]or purposes of appeal, the
period shall be counted from receipt of such decisions,
resolutions, or orders by the counsel or representative of
record.‰
We now come to the issue of whether the NLRC had
jurisdiction over the controversy between Livesey and
CBB/Dwyer on the ground that it involved an intra-
corporate dispute.
Based on the facts of the case, we find this issue to have
been rendered academic by the compromise agreement
between Livesey and CBB and approved by LA Reyno.[41]
That CBB reneged in the fulfillment of its obligation under
the agreement is no reason to revive the issue and further
frustrate the full settlement of the obligation as agreed
upon.
The substantive aspect of the case
Even if we rule that the respondentsÊ appeal before the
CA had been filed on time, we believe and so hold that the
appellate court committed a reversible error of judgment in
its challenged decision.
The NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion in
reversing LA LaderasÊ ruling as there is substantial
evidence in the records that Livesey was prevented from
fully receiving his monetary entitlements under the
compromise agreement between him and CBB, with Elliot
signing for CBB as its President and CEO. Substantial
evidence is more than a scintilla; it means such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.[42]
_______________
[41] Supra note 8.
[42] Gelmart Industries (Phils.), Inc. v. Hon. Leogardo, Jr., 239 Phil.
386, 391; 155 SCRA 403, 410 (1987); citing Ang Tibay v. Court of
Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635 (1940).
448
_______________
[43] Jose C. Vitug (Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice),
Commercial Law and Jurisprudence, Volume II, 2006 ed., p. 9; citing Lim
v. Court of Appeals, 380 Phil. 60, 76; 323 SCRA 102, 117 (2000).
449
_______________
[44] Ibid., citing Philippine National Bank v. Ritratto Group, Inc., 414
Phil. 494, 505; 362 SCRA 216, 225 (2001).
[45] Ibid., citing National Federation of Labor Union (NAFLU) v. Ople,
No. L-68661, July 22, 1986, 143 SCRA 124; and Commissioner of Internal
Revenue v. Norton & Harrison Company, No. L-17618, August 31, 1964,
11 SCRA 714.
[46] Hector S. de Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr., The Corporation
Code of the Philippines, 9th ed., 2006, p. 26.
450
_______________
[47] Supra note 7.
[48] Rollo, p. 875.
[49] Id., at p. 539.
[50] Id., at p. 546.
451
_______________
[51] Id., at p. 539.
[52] Id., at p. 596.
[53] Jose C. Vitug (Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice),
Commercial Law and Jurisprudence, Volume II, 2006 ed., p. 9; citing
National Federation of Labor Union v. Ople, 227 Phil. 113; 143 SCRA 124
(1986).
452