Scribd
Upload
862 views2 pages

Purcon Vs MRM Philippines

The petitioner filed a case for worker's compensation benefits against the respondent shipping company due to injuries sustained while working aboard their vessel. The labor arbitrator and NLRC dismissed the case, finding the injuries were not work-related. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court also denied subsequent petitions. The petitioner then filed a petition for relief from judgment in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that a petition for relief is not an available remedy in the Supreme Court, which only entertains original cases specifically enumerated in the Rules of Court. Even if it did consider the merits, the petition would still be denied because the late filing of prior petitions did not constitute excusable negligence.

Uploaded by

ana ortiz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
862 views2 pages

Purcon Vs MRM Philippines

The petitioner filed a case for worker's compensation benefits against the respondent shipping company due to injuries sustained while working aboard their vessel. The labor arbitrator and NLRC dismissed the case, finding the injuries were not work-related. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court also denied subsequent petitions. The petitioner then filed a petition for relief from judgment in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that a petition for relief is not an available remedy in the Supreme Court, which only entertains original cases specifically enumerated in the Rules of Court. Even if it did consider the merits, the petition would still be denied because the late filing of prior petitions did not constitute excusable negligence.

Uploaded by

ana ortiz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Purcon vs MRM Philippines

Petition for certiorari under Rule 45

FACTS:

 Petitioner filed a case for reimbursement of medical expenses, sickness allowance and
permanent disability benefits before the Arbitration branch of the NLRC
 He alleged that respondent hired him as a seaman on board the M/T Sarabelle 2; he signed a
contract for 3 months and was extended for another 3 months
 His work involved strenuous work; One day, he felt an excruciating pain in his left testicle. After
being examined by a doctor at the port of France, he was diagnosed with hernia; after that he
was repatriated due to his ailment.
 The company physician told him that he is fit to work but there was no vacancy at that time
 He asked another doctor and after a thorough medical examination and evaluation, he was
diagnosed with EPIDIDYMITIS, LEFT; UPPER RESPIRATORY TRACT INFACTION WITH INPEDIMENT
GRADE XIV.
 Respondents answered that Hermia is not work related and that petitioner signed a quitclaim
and release
 LA dismissed the complaint for Hermia is not work related and that he was already cured;
the fact that he was not re-hired by respondent did not mean that he was suffering from
disability.
 NLRC resolution became final and executory and was recorded in the Book of Entries of
Judgments; petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under R.65 which CA dismissed due to formal
infirmities; CA decision became final and executory
 Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under R.45 in the SC; SC denied the petition and ruled
that the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period, failure to pay docket fees, and
defective verification
 Petitioner filed for a petition for relief from judgment

ISSUE:

WON the petition for relief should be granted

HELD:

NO. A petition for relief from judgment is not an available remedy in the Supreme Court.

First, although Section 1 of Rule 38 states that when a judgment or final order is entered through fraud,
accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, a party in any court may file a petition for relief from
judgment, this rule must be interpreted in harmony with Rule 56, which enumerates the original cases
cognizable by the Supreme Court, thus:

Section 1. Original cases cognizable. Only petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas corpus, disciplinary proceedings against members of the judiciary and attorneys, and
cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls may be filed originally in the Supreme
Court.
In Dela Cruz v. Andres, a petition for relief from judgment is not an available remedy in the Court of
Appeals and the Supreme Court. The Court explained that under the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure, the petition for relief must be filed within sixty (60) days after petitioner learns of the
judgment, final order or other proceeding to be set aside and must be accompanied with affidavits
showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting
petitioners good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be. Most importantly, it
should be filed with the same court which rendered the decision

Second, while Rule 38 uses the phrase any court, it refers only to Municipal/Metropolitan and Regional
Trial Courts.

As revised, Rule 38 radically departs from the previous rule as it now allows the Metropolitan or
Municipal Trial Court which decided the case or issued the order to hear the petition for relief. Under
the old rule, a petition for relief from the judgment or final order of Municipal Trial Courts should be
filed with the Regional Trial Court

The procedural change in Rule 38 is in line with Rule 5, prescribing uniform procedure for Municipal
and Regional Trial Courts and designation of Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Courts as courts of record.

Third, the procedure in the CA and the Supreme Court are governed by separate provisions of the
Rules of Court. It may, from time to time, be supplemented by additional rules promulgated by the
Supreme Court through resolutions or circulars. As it stands, neither the Rules of Court nor the Revised
Internal Rules of the CA allows the remedy of petition for relief in the CA.

The procedure in the CA from Rules 44 to 55, with the exception of Rule 45 which pertains to the
Supreme Court, identifies the remedies available before said

If a petition for relief from judgment is not among the remedies available in the CA, with more
reason that this remedy cannot be availed of in the Supreme Court. This Court entertains only
questions of law. A petition for relief raises questions of facts on fraud, accident, mistake, or
excusable negligence, which are beyond the concerns of this Court.

Nevertheless, even if We delve into the merits of the petition, the same must still be dismissed. The late
filing of the petition for review does not amount to excusable negligence. Petitioners lack of devotion in
discharging his duty, without demonstrating fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, cannot be
a basis for judicial relief. For a claim of counsels gross negligence to prosper, nothing short of clear
abandonment of the clients cause must be shown.

The relief afforded by Rule 38 will not be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved from the effects
of the judgment when the loss of the remedy of law was due to his own negligence, or mistaken mode
of procedure for that matter; otherwise the petition for relief will be tantamount to reviving the right
of appeal which has already been lost, either because of inexcusable negligence or due to a mistake of
procedure by counsel.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy