Salvador, Antonio Dominic G.

NUEVA ECIJA II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. MAPAGU

G.R. No. 196084

February 15, 2017

FACTS:

Respondent Elmer Mapagu (Mapagu) was employed as a data processor by petitioner Nueva Ecija II Electric
Cooperative (NEEC). The NEEC Board of Directors requested the National Electrification Administration (NEA) to
conduct a special audit on the power bills and accounts of its consumers as well as NEEC’s internal control and
procedure. The special audit then found that there were unaccounted consumption or readings which have
accumulated as a result of under-reading or under-billing. It revealed that Respondent Mapagu’s electric
consumption was under-read and under-billed for three months, amounting to a total of ₱87,666.17. A notice was
then sent to Mapagu, notifying him of his violations of the Code of Ethics and Discipline of the NEEC (NEEC Code),
for “fraud of wilfull breach of trust” and “acts of dishonesty which tend to cause prejudice.” The penalty for the
said violations was dismissal for the first offense. Consequently, Mapagu was required to submit an answer within
72 hours from the receipt of the notice, to which he complied.

NEEC then formed an Investigation and Appeals Committee (IAC) to investigate Mapagu and other workers
implicated in the special audit. It was found by the IAC that the allegations of under-reading and under-billing
against Mapagu was not established. However, it stated that Mapagu failed to observe the highest degree of
honesty when he failed to take action to correct such readings and billings. The IAC ruled that Mapagu “had
consented to the anomaly for his own benefit” therefore guilty of the charges against him and of violations of the
NEEC Code for concealing defective work prejudicial to the NEEC. The IAC imposed a penalty of two years
suspension against Mapagu, on the condition that the latter executes a waiver against filing of any legal action
regarding such suspension and to pay the amount of ₱87,666.17. Despite this penalty, Mapagu received a notice
dismissing him from his employment. Consequently, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor
Arbiter (LA).

The LA ruled in favor of NEEC, stating that the NEEC has discharged the burden of proving the legality of the
dimissal of Mapagu. On appeal to the NLRC, the Commission held that the penalty of dismissal is unwarranted.
According to the NLRC, “while the law does not condone wrongdoing by an employee, it urges a moderation of
the sanction that may be applied to him where a penalty less punitive would suffice.” The NLRC concluded that
Mapagu is entitled to reinstatement and backwages. Subsequently, a motion for reconsideration was filed by
NEEC but was then denied by the NLRC.

NEEC elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The CA dismissed
the petition outright for failure to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping. A motion for
reconsideration was subsequently denied by the CA. The NEEC then filed a petition for review under Rule 45
before the Supreme Court. Mapagu however contended that the petition was filed out of time, with the 15-day
reglementary period already lapsed. On the other hand, NEEC maintained that they have a 60-day period within
which to file the present petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the NEEC filed their petition within the reglementary period

HELD:

No. NEEC filed their petition for review under Rule 45 beyond the reglementary period fixed by the Rules.

The Court held that petitioners failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Rule 45. It stated that, “they
confuse petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. It is the latter
which is required to be filed within a period of not later than 60 days from notice of the judgment, order or
resolution. If a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed, the 60-day period shall be counted from notice of
the denial of the motion.” On the contrary, under Rule 45, “a party litigant wishing to file a petition for review
on certiorari must do so within 15 days from notice of the judgment, final order or resolution sought to be
appealed.” With the filing of an extension, a party only has a maximum of 45 days within which to file his petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 45. In the case at bar, petitioners belatedly filed their appeal by filing 50 days
beyond the 15-day period provided under Rule 45. Even so with the grant of an extension of 30 days, the same
would still be beyond the period. Hence, the Court dismissed the petition.