Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
MANILA

MARY ELLE EIBA D. BIMINAL G.R. NO. 33114

-SCINCILLO,
Petitioner
FOR : SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION
- versus - FOR CERTIORARI

COURT OF APPEALS and

CIMBB UNIBANK, INC.,
Respondents
x -------‐-------------------------- x

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

Petitioner through the undersigned counsel unto this Honorable Court

hereby respectfully states and alleged that:

NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PETITION

1. This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court

seeking to annul and set aside the Resolutions dated November 3,
2021, June 18, 2022 , March 24, 2023, of the Court of Appeals on the
ground that the assailed Resolutions were rendered with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

2. The petitioner received the assailed Court of Appeals Resolution dated

March 4, 2023 denying the Motion for Reconsideration on March 24,
2023. This petition is timely filed because it is still within the 60-day
reglementary period provided by the Rules.

THE PARTIES

3. Petitioner Mary Elle Eiba D. Biminal-Scincillo ( Mary ) was the

Assistant Vice-President and Head of the Branch Operations Review
Department (BORD) of respondent CIMBB UNIBANK, INC. As the
head of the BORD, petitioner was responsible for the overall review
of compliance of domestic branches with internal control policies,
established procedures and guidelines of the bank, among others. Her
primary mandate was to eradicate fraud and prosecute fraudsters. She
supervised 26 Branch Operations Review Officers in their operations
 review of all branches, gave authority to convene the Regional Fact-
Finding Committees, reviewed the reports and indorsed fraud to legal
and audit.

4. Private Respondent CIMBB UNIBANK INC. is a full-service

universal bank in the Philippines which provides a complete array of
industry-leading products and services including Lending (corporate
and consumer), Deposit-taking, Foreign Exchange, Brokering, Trust
and Investments, Credit Cards, Retail Cash Cards, Corporate Cash
Management and Remittances in the Philippines. Through its local
subsidiaries, the Bank offers Investment Banking, Private Banking,
Leasing and Finance, Rural Banking, Life Insurance, Insurance
Brokerage and Online and Non-Online Brokerage services. Its head
office is located at CIMBB Corporate Center 7899 Makati Avenue,
Makati City where Court’s notices and processes may be served.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

5. In a memorandum dated January 24, 2020, respondent CIMBB,

through its Administrative Board, charged petitioner with several acts
constituting abuse of authority, concealment of knowledge of
commission of fraud, deceit or other forms of irregularity, willful
breach of trust resulting in loss of confidence and gross misconduct.
Copy of such memorandum is hereto attached as (ANNEX “A”).

6. On February 5, 2020, petitioner was placed under preventive

suspension for 30 days beginning February 8, 2020 until March 9,
2020. Also, on February 5, 2020, CIMBB’s Administrative Board
conducted an administrative hearing where both petitioner and his
counsel appeared.

7. On February13, 2020, respondent CIMBB, through its Chief

Employee Relations Officer, issued an implementing Order on the
administrative charge for abuse of authority, concealment, willful
breach of trust and confidence against petitioner. In the said Order, the
Administrative Board’s Decision dated February 8, 2020 was quoted
in its entirety and petitioner was further informed that the Board found
him guilty of willful breach of trust resulting in loss of confidence and
he was meted the penalty of dismissal. Copy of the Administrative
Board’s Decision is hereto attached as (ANNEX “B”) and copy of
CIMBB’s implementing Order is attached as (ANNEX “C”).

8. On April 14, 2020, petitioner filed before the Labor Arbiter a

Complaint for illegal suspension and dismissal and prayed for
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and payment of his full
backwages, holiday pay, 13th month pay, allowances, bonuses, moral
 and exemplary damage, and attorney’s fees. Copy of the petitioner’s
Complaint is hereto attached as (ANNEX “D”).

9. On February 18, 2021, the Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioner’s

dismissal was for a just and valid cause and that he was afforded due
process. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
Copy of the Decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereto attached as
(ANNEX “E”).

10. Petitioner appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). In a Decision dated July 31,
2021, the NLRC denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the
Labor Arbiter. Copy of the NLRC’s decision is hereto attached as
(ANNEX “F”).

11. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC in

its Resolution dated September 17, 2021. Petitioner received the copy
of the Resolution on September 23, 2021. Copy of such Resolution is
hereto attached as (ANNEX “G”).

12. On October 8, 2021, or 21 days after the receipt of the NLRC

Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed
with the Court of Appeals a Motion for Extension of Time to File
Petition for Certiorari. He prayed that he be granted 15 days extension
or until October 23, 2021 within which to file his petition for
certiorari with the appellate court. Copy of the Motion for Extension
of Time to File Petition for Certiorari is hereto attached as (ANNEX
“H”).

13. On November 3, 2021, the Court of Appeals promulgated a

Resolution dismissing the case docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 137479,
copy of which is attached as (ANNEX “I”).

14. Meanwhile on October 23, 2021, petitioner’s counsel filed a

Manifestation and Motion stating that in filing the Motion for
Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari on October 8, 2021,
be overlooked Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which
provides a period of 60 days to file a petition for certiorari. Hence, his
last day to file the petition is on November 22, 2021. Copy of such
Motion and Manifestation is hereto attached as (ANNEX “J”).

15. On November 24, 2021, petitioner filed his Petition for Certiorari
with the Court of Appeals. Copy of such is hereto attached as
(ANNEX “K”).

16. On June 18, 2022, the Court of Appeals promulgated a Resolution

ordering the Division Clerk of Court to effect Entry of the Resolution
of November 3, 2021. On the same date, the Resolution dated
November 3, 2021 became final and executory and was recorded in
 the Book of Entries of Judgment. Copy of the Resolution dated June
18, 2022 is hereto attached as (ANNEX “L”).

17. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated

June 18, 2022, which motion was denied by the Court of Appeals in a
Resolution dated March 4, 2023. Copy of the motion for
reconsideration of the petitioner is hereto attached as (ANNEX “M”)
and copy of the Resolution of dated March 4, 2016 is hereto attached
as (ANNEX “N”).

GROUNDS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE PETITION

18. With due respect, this Petition for Certiorari is anchored on the
following grounds:

I.

PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED

GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISSED CA-G.R. SP
No. 137479 BEFORE THE LAPSE OF THE SIXTY (60) DAY
REGLEMENTARY PERIOD TO FILE A PETITION UNDER RULE
65.

II.

PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED

PATENT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN, BEING AWARE
OF THE PERIOD SET BY THE RULES, IT SIMPLY NOTED
PETITIONER’S MANIFESTSTION AND MOTION DATED
OCTOBER 22, 2021,AND ORDERED THE CORRESPONDING
ENTRY OF THE RESOLUTION OF NOVEMBER 3, 2021 BY THE
DIVISION CLERK OF COURT.

III.

PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED

PATENT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN, NO
REINSTATEMENT OF THE ERRONEOUS DISMISSAL, IT
DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
 DATED JULY 21, 2022 DESPITE THE FACT THAT HER
PETITION WAS CLEARLY FILED ON TIME.

IV.

PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED PATENT GRAVE ABUSE

OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS 9F
JURISDICTION WHEN IT EVADED PERFORMANCE OF A
POSITIVE DUTY THEREBY VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION
AND ITS OWN INTERNAL RULES.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

19. That while petitioner’s former counsel erroneously asked for a fifteen
(15) day extension with the mistaken belief that she had an original
period of 15 days only to file the petition for certiorari, this was just
corrected just in time when the same counsel filed the Manifestation
and Motion dated October 22, 2021 pointing to his error.

20. That the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction because it dismissed the
case based on Section 4 9f Rule 65 of the Rules of Court as stated in
Footnote No. 2 of the Resolution dated November 3, 2021.
Considering that the appellate court recognized that the case (CA-
G.R. SP No. 137479) was being appealed to it under Rule 65, it was
incumbent upon the Court of Appeals to allow petitioner to file the
required pleading within the period fixed by the Rules, and not
whimsically shorten the same with full knowledge that the 60-day
period had not yet lapsed. Since petitioner filed the petition within the
prescribed period, nothing prevented the Court of Appeals from
reinstating the petition, giving due course to the same and
adjudicating the case on the merits.

21. Petitioner contends that the acts of the Court of Appeals of simply
“noting” the Manifestation and Motion, ignoring the petition that was
filed on time, and ordering the Entry of Resolution are tantamount to
depriving him of his rights under the Rules of Court and ultimately in
contravention of the dictates and guarantees of the Constitution. He
also alleges that the Court of Appeals evaded performance of a
positive duty, thereby violating the Constitution and its internal rules.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, petitioner Mary Elle Eiba D. Biminal-Scincillo

respectfully prays that the Resolutions dated November 3, 2014, June 18, 2015,
and March 4, 2016 promulgated by the Court of Appeals be reversed and set aside,
and that the appellate court be ordered to admit the petition for certiorari and give
it due course.

Petitioner prays for such other reliefs as are just and equitable under the
circumstances.

Bacacay, Albay, Philippines, 25 October 2024.

ATTY. CHRISTIAN IVAN B. BARIA

My Commission No. is 26
Expires on December 31, 2024
Baria Law Office, P-2
Baclayon, Bacacay, Albay
Roll of Attorneys No. 033114
PTR NO. 654321, 01/14/2023,
Bacacay, Albay
IBP NO. 123456, 01/10/2023
MCLE Comp. No. V-1234567