Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 154124 August 13, 2010
NATIONAL TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner,
vs.
DANIEL CASTILLO, Respondents.
R S O ! " T I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
Petitioner National Tobacco #d$inistration %NT#& see's the revie( of the decision dated March )), )**) %den+in, NT#-s
petition for revie(&,
.
and the resolution dated /une )0, )**) %den+in, NT#-s $otion for reconsideration&,
)
both pro$ul,ated
b+ the 1ourt of #ppeals %1#& in 1#23.R. SP No. 0455. entitled National Tobacco #d$inistration v. Daniel 1astillo.
The respondent (as one of the e$plo+ees adversel+ affected b+ the reor,ani6ation of NT#. He (as ter$inated fro$ his
e$plo+$ent due to the abolition of his ite$ as 1ashier I in its Isabela 7ranch. He appealed to the 1ivil Service 1o$$ission
%1S1&, (hich on /anuar+ )0, )*** set aside the ter$ination and ordered NT# to re2appoint hi$ 8to a position in the ne(
staffin, pattern (hich is co$parable to latter-s for$er position under the sa$e e$plo+$ent status.8
9
NT# $oved for the
reconsideration of the 1S1 resolution, but its $otion for reconsideration (as denied for lac' of $erit on /ul+ )., )***.
:
NT#
filed a second $otion for reconsideration, (hich the 1S1 also denied on October .9, )*** because its rules allo(ed onl+
one $otion for reconsideration.
5
NT# persisted b+ filin, on Dece$ber ;, )*** a petition for the ad$ission of the second
$otion for reconsideration and of herein supple$ental $anifestation.
0
Ho(ever, the 1S1 denied the petition for ad$ission
on #pril ), )**..
4
"ndaunted, NT# filed a petition for relief in the 1S1, ar,uin, that it had been unable to appeal fro$ the 1S1-s earlier
resolutions due to e<cusable ne,li,ence= that it had a $eritorious defense= and that the >uestioned resolutions (ere
inconsistent (ith the 1S1-s pronounce$ent in Dabu v. NT# %1S1 1ase No. ??2*404&, a case (hose facts (ere identical to
those of this case. It e<plained that its for$er counsel-s e<cessivel+ nu$erous duties %in addition to his bein, the Deput+
#d$inistrator for Operations of NT#& had rendered his co$pliance (ith all the le,al re>uire$ents of NT#-s cases ph+sicall+
and $entall+ i$possible for hi$, leadin, hi$ to inadvertentl+ and erroneousl+ file a second $otion for reconsideration
instead of ta'in, an appeal to the 1#.
On October .), )**., the 1S1 dis$issed the petition for relief on the ,round that such a recourse (as not a proper re$ed+
a,ainst an adverse decision under its "nifor$ Rules on #d$inistrative 1ases in the 1ivil Service= and that an appeal in due
course to the 1# (as the proper re$ed+ of NT#.
;
NT# elevated the dis$issal to the 1# via a petition for revie( under Rule :9 of the Rules of 1ourt. It assailed the 1S1-s
dis$issal of its petition for relief, clai$in, that its failure to file its appeal had been due to e<cusable ne,li,ence.
On March )), )**), the 1# denied NT#-s petition for lac' of $erit, and found NT#-s clai$s of e<cusable ne,li,ence and a
$eritorious defense unconvincin,. The 1# held that the assailed resolutions of the 1S1 had also alread+ beco$e final and
e<ecutor+ b+ virtue of NT#-s failure to appeal pursuant to the "nifor$ Rules on #d$inistrative 1ases in the 1ivil Service
and the Rules of 1ourt.
?

NT# $oved for the reconsideration, but the 1# denied its $otion for reconsideration throu,h the assailed resolution of /une
)0, )**).
.*
Hence, this recourse, (hereb+ NT# contends that the 1# erred in declarin, that the ter$ination of the respondent had been
(ithout notice and hearin,, and in not findin, that NT#-s counsel had been ,uilt+ of e<cusable ne,li,ence.
Page 1 of 4
The decisive considerations are (hether the ne,li,ence of NT#-s counsel (as e<cusable, and (hether NT#-s appeal (as
still allo(able.1avvph!1
@e rule a,ainst NT#.
NT#-s ar,u$ent that its for$er counsel faced the 8herculean tas' of personall+ handlin, the nu$erous le,al cases of the
petitioner8 (ithout an+ la(+er assistant in addition to his 8re,ular duties and responsibilities as Deput+ #d$inistrator for
Operations of the a,enc+,8
..
even assu$in, it to be true, did not Austif+ the erroneous filin, of a second $otion for
reconsideration and a petition for relief fro$ Aud,$ent in the 1S1 (here such recourses (ere not allo(ed under the
"nifor$ Rules on #d$inistrative 1ases in the 1ivil Service. NT#-s for$er counsel ou,ht to have 'no(n of the correct
recourses to ta'e fro$ the adverse resolution of the 1S1.
Moreover, the oversi,ht of NT#-s counsel in not seasonabl+ appealin, to the 1# (as not e<cusable. Bor one, $ere volu$e
of the (or' of an attorne+ has never e<cused an o$ission to co$pl+ (ith the period to appeal. #lso, NT# itself caused its
o(n counsel to be overburdened (ith (or' b+ not e$plo+in, additional la(+ers to handle its e<cessive le,al (or' and avoid
its present predica$ent. 1learl+, the ne,lect of counsel in not filin, the appeal on ti$e (as not so$ethin, that ordinar+
dili,ence and prudence could not have ,uarded a,ainst.
.)
# client is ,enerall+ bound b+ the $ista'es of his la(+er= other(ise, there (ould never be an end to a liti,ation as lon, as a
ne( counsel could be e$plo+ed, and (ho could then alle,e and sho( that the precedin, counsel had not been sufficientl+
dili,ent or e<perienced or learned.
.9
The le,al profession de$ands of a la(+er that de,ree of vi,ilance and attention
e<pected of a ,ood father of a fa$il+= such la(+er should adopt the nor$ of practice e<pected of $en of ,ood intentions.
.:

Moreover, a la(+er o(es it to hi$self and to his clients to adopt an efficient and orderl+ s+ste$ of 'eepin, trac' of the
develop$ents in his cases, and should be 'no(led,eable of the re$edies appropriate to his cases.
1o$poundin, the dire situation of NT# (as that its appeal to the 1# (as too belated. Thereb+, the assailed resolution of
the 1S1 attained finalit+ and beca$e e<ecutor+,
.5
resultin, in the 1S1 resolution beco$in, i$$utable and unalterable, that
is, it $i,ht no lon,er be altered, $odified, or reversed in an+ respect even if the alteration, $odification, or reversal (as
$eant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or la(, and (hether the alteration, $odification, or reversal (ould be $ade
b+ the court or office that rendered the resolution or b+ the hi,hest court of the land.
.0

@HRBOR, (e den+ the petition for revie( on certiorari, and affir$ the decision dated March )), )**) and the
resolution dated /une )0, )**) pro$ul,ated b+ the 1ourt of #ppeals in 1#23.R. SP No. 0455..
SO ORDRD.
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
#ssociate /ustice
@ 1ON1"RC
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
#ssociate /ustice
1hairperson
ARTURO D. BRION
#ssociate /ustice
ROBERTO A. ABAD
D
#ssociate /ustice
MARTIN S. ILLARAMA, !R.
#ssociate /ustice
# T T S T # T I O N
Page 2 of 4
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case (as assi,ned to the
(riter of the opinion of the 1ourt-s Division.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
#ssociate /ustice
1hairperson
1 R T I B I 1 # T I O N
Pursuant to Section .9, #rticle VIII of the 1onstitution, and the Division 1hairperson-s #ttestation, I certif+ that the
conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case (as assi,ned to the (riter of the
opinion of the 1ourt-s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
1hief /ustice
"oot#ot$s
D
#dditional $e$ber per Special Order No. ;:9 dated Ma+ .4, )*.*.
.
Rollo, pp. 9*290= penned b+ #ssociate /ustice lie6er R. De los Santos %deceased&, and concurred in b+
#ssociate /ustice 7uenaventura /. 3uerrero %retired& and #ssociate /ustice Rodri,o V. 1osico %retired&.
)
Id., pp. 9;29?.
9
Id., pp. ...2..0 %1S1 Resolution No. ***)9?&.
:
Id., pp. .)?2.9. %1S1 Resolution No. **.4*)&.
5
Id., pp. .952.90 %1S1 Resolution No. **)9):&.
0
Id., pp. .942.:4.
4
Id., pp. .:;2.:? %1S1 Resolution No. *.*4)?&.
;
Id., pp. .052.00 %1S1 Resolution No. *..050&.
?
Id., pp. 9*290.
.*
Id., pp. 9;29?.
..
Id., p. )9.
.)
Gold Line Transit, Inc. v. Ramos, :.5 Phil. :?) %)**.&.
.9
Tesoro v. Court of Appeals, .59 Phil. 5;*, 5;; %.?49&.
.:
Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, 3.R. No. .)?*?*, #pril 9*, )**9, :*) S1R# ):4.
.5
Manipor v. Ricafort, 3.R. No. .5*.5?, /ul+ )5, )**9, :*4 S1R# )?;.
Page 3 of 4
.0
nion !an" of the #hilippines v. #acific $%uipment Corporation, 3.R. No. .4)*59, October 0, )**;, 504
S1R# 549.
Page 4 of 4