When Court Notices Must Reach the Lawyer: Cervantes v. City Service Corporation

The Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Cervantes v. City Service Corporation (G.R. No. 191616) settles an important procedural point for lawyers and litigants alike: when a party is represented by counsel, the period to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals runs from the date the lawyer of record receives the NLRC resolution — not from when the client or a relative receives it. The ruling protects clients from the consequences of misdirected notices and reinforces the duty of courts and tribunals to serve orders on the counsel on record.

The Facts of the Case

Francis Cervantes filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against City Service Corporation and Valentin Prieto, Jr. before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, finding that Cervantes had refused reassignment and went on absence without official leave (AWOL). The NLRC affirmed.

Cervantes, through counsel, moved for reconsideration. The NLRC denied the motion in a Resolution dated July 22, 2009. A copy of that Resolution was received by Cervantes’ mother on July 30, 2009. However, the NLRC did not serve a copy on Cervantes’ counsel of record, Atty. Romeo Occena, until November 19, 2009.

Meanwhile, Cervantes filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals on October 7, 2009. The CA dismissed the petition as filed out of time, counting the 60-day period from July 30, 2009 — the date his mother received the Resolution.

The Issue

The central question was: should the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 be counted from the client’s receipt of the NLRC Resolution, or from the counsel of record’s receipt?

The Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cervantes on the procedural issue. The Court held that when a party is represented by counsel, all notices must be served on the counsel of record. Service upon any person other than the counsel of record is not legally effective and does not start the running of the reglementary period.

The Court cited the NLRC Rules of Procedure, which state that for purposes of appeal, the period shall be counted from receipt of the decision, resolution, or order by the counsel or representative of record. It also relied on prior rulings in Ginete v. Sunrise Manning Agency and Bello v. NLRC, which established the same rule.

Applying this principle, the Court found that the 60-day period should have been counted from November 19, 2009 — when the NLRC finally served the Resolution on Cervantes’ counsel. Since Cervantes filed his petition on October 7, 2009, it was well within the prescribed period.

The Merits: No Illegal Dismissal

Despite the procedural victory, the Court denied the petition on the merits. It found that Cervantes was not illegally dismissed. He was reassigned to another client after being relieved from his post due to poor performance, but he refused the reassignment and went AWOL despite notices to report back to work. The Court affirmed the NLRC’s findings, noting that factual findings of labor tribunals, when supported by substantial evidence, are binding on the Court.

Practical Takeaways

• Notice to counsel is notice to the party. When a litigant is represented by a lawyer, courts and quasi-judicial bodies must serve orders and resolutions on the counsel of record. Service on the client or a relative does not start the clock for appeals or petitions.
• Check the date of counsel’s receipt. Lawyers should verify when they actually received a copy of an adverse resolution, as this date — not the client’s — determines the deadline for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
• Keep the court informed of address changes. A counsel who changes address without notifying the court risks losing the protection of this rule, as notices sent to the old address may be deemed sufficient.
• Substantial evidence prevails. Even when procedural rules are satisfied, the merits of a labor case will still be decided on the strength of the evidence. A timely petition does not guarantee a favorable outcome.
• Clients should immediately forward court documents to their lawyer. While the rule protects clients from misdirected service, prompt transmission of any received notice to counsel remains prudent practice.

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