CALLEON v HZSC REALTY

G.R. No. 228572, January 27, 2020

FIRST DIVISION, J.C. REYES

Service of Pleadings or any other court submission

Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court (Rules) provides that "[i]f any party has appeared
by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel or one of them, unless service
upon the party himself is ordered by the court." Thus, even if a party represented by
counsel has been actually notified, said notice is not considered notice in law.

A complaint was filed for illegal dismissal against HZSC Realty Corporation (HZSC) and its
president, Calleon. The Labor Arbiter declared HZSC and Calleon guilty of illegal dismissal.
Both appealed to the NLRC, but were both dismissed. Their motions for reconsideration
were also denied. Calleon filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. praying to be absolved
from liability in the absence of any finding of malice and fraud on his part. In a resolution
dated September 23, 2016, the CA dismissed the petition. Calleon received his personal
notice of the resolution on October 5, 2016. In a Resolution, CA denied the motion for
reconsideration for having been belatedly filed. Calleon argues, however, that his counsel,
Atty. Santos, only received notice of the September 23, 2016 Resolution on October 11,
2016, and as such, the motion for reconsideration was timely filed.

Was the CA correct in dismissing the motion for reconsideration for having been belatedly
filed?

No, the CA is not correct. The reglementary period shall be counted from the date the
counsel received the notice of the resolution, and not from the date Calleon received
personal notice.

Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provides that "[i]f any party has appeared by
counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel or one of them, unless service
upon the party himself is ordered by the court." Thus, even if a party represented by
counsel has been actually notified, said notice is not considered notice in law. The
reason is simple — the parties, generally, have no formal education or knowledge of the
rules of procedure, specifically, the mechanics of an appeal or availment of legal remedies;
thus, they may also be unaware of the rights and duties of a litigant relative to the receipt
of a decision. More importantly, it is best for the courts to deal only with one person in the
interest of orderly procedure — either the lawyer retained by the party or the party
him/herself if [he/she] does not intend to hire a lawyer."

In the case at the bar, a copy of the September 23, 2016 Resolution was sent to Atty.
Santos at his registered address. According to the Postmaster’s records, Atty Santos only
received it on October 11, 20. Consequently, petitioner had fifteen (15) days from such
receipt, 31 or until October 26, 2016, within which to file his motion for reconsideration.
Thus, petitioner's motion for reconsideration was timely filed, contrary to the ruling of the
CA.