Illegal Dismissal Claims and the 60-Day Rule for Certiorari Petitions

The Supreme Court recently addressed a critical procedural question in labor cases: can courts extend the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari? In Castells v. Saudi Arabian Airlines (G.R. No. 188514, August 28, 2013), the Court ruled that despite strict rules, courts retain discretion to grant extensions under compelling circumstances.

The case also illustrates how forced resignations can constitute illegal dismissal, making it valuable reading for both employers and employees navigating termination disputes.

The Facts of the Case

Two flight attendants of Saudi Arabian Airlines were ordered transferred from Manila to Jeddah due to "operational requirements." One complied with the transfer; the other did not.

Upon arrival in Jeddah, the first attendant was told her contract would not be renewed and was asked to sign a pre-typed resignation letter. She complied, believing she had no choice. The second attendant prepared a resignation letter stating she felt forced to resign, but was told to amend it to say she was resigning voluntarily.

Both later filed complaints for illegal dismissal, alleging the transfer was a scheme to terminate older flight attendants.

The Procedural Issue

After the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the Labor Arbiter's ruling in their favor, the attendants sought review before the Court of Appeals. They filed a motion for extension to file their petition for certiorari, which the CA granted. They then filed their petition on the next working day after the extended deadline.

However, the CA later reversed itself, ruling that A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC—which amended Rule 65 of the Rules of Court—no longer allowed extensions of the 60-day period. The CA refused to admit the petition.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the attendants, holding that the CA erred in refusing to admit the petition.

While procedural rules deserve respect, the Court recognized exceptions for compelling reasons. Citing Republic v. St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc., the Court held that despite the rigid wording of the amended Rule, courts may extend the 60-day period "under exceptional circumstances" and "subject to the sound discretion of the Court."

The Court emphasized that the CA had already exercised that discretion when it granted the extension. Reversing that decision seven months later was "antithetical to the tenets of fair play" and unduly prejudiced the petitioners' rights. The case was remanded for resolution on the merits.

Practical Takeaways

• The 60-day rule is not absolute. Courts may extend the period to file a petition for certiorari when compelling reasons exist, despite the strict wording of Rule 65 as amended.
• Forced resignation can be illegal dismissal. When an employer creates circumstances that leave an employee no real choice but to resign, courts may treat the resignation as a constructive dismissal.
• Quitclaims do not always bar claims. The Labor Arbiter noted that undertakings releasing the employer from claims—akin to quitclaims—do not automatically prevent employees from filing cases, especially where coercion is shown.
• Act promptly on appellate deadlines. While extensions may be granted, litigants should not assume they will be. Filing within the original period remains the safest course.
• Document everything. Employees who feel coerced into resigning should keep evidence of the circumstances, including communications showing they did not resign voluntarily.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.