CONTACT: |
Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
(632) 8524-2706 |
libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
350 Phil. 878
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 127979, March 11, 1998 ]
AQUALINK MARITIME INC. AND
WORLDER SHIPPING LTD., PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION (4TH DIVISION) AND ANDREI BORGONIA, RESPONDENTS.
R E S O L U T I O N
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
In this special
civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the
petitioners assail the resolutions of 15 October 1996,[1] 20 November 1996,[2] and 28 January 1997[3] in NLRC Case No. V-003-96. The first dismissed petitioners’ appeal from
the decision of 19 July 1996 of Labor Arbiter Dominador A. Almirante in NLRC
Case No. RAB-0006-96 (OCW) for having been filed “thirteen (13) days after they
received the Labor Arbiter’s Decision on July 30, 1996.” The second denied petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration because the registry return receipt showed that the petitioners
received a copy of the Labor Arbiter’s decision on 30 July 1996 and not on 31
July 1996 as asserted by them. The
third resolution denied petitioners’ motion for the reconsideration of the
resolution of 20 November 1996 on the ground that it partook of a second motion
for reconsideration, which is not allowed under Rule VII, Section 14 of the
NLRC New Rules of Procedure.
The petitioners
contend that public respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
gravely abused its discretion in dismissing petitioners’ appeal. They insist, just as they did in their
motions for reconsideration before the NLRC, that they received a copy of the
Labor Arbiter’s decision on 31 July 1996 as evidenced by the certification
dated 29 October 1996[4] issued by the Postmaster of the
Central Post Office of Manila.
Only the Office
of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment on the petition. It asserts that the NLRC acted correctly in
dismissing the appeal of the petitioners, since the same was filed beyond the
10-day period provided for in Article 223 of the Labor Code. The petitioners received a copy of the Labor
Arbiter’s decision on 30 July 1996; hence, they had only until 9
August 1996 within which to appeal. The OSG further argues that even assuming that the petitioners received
a copy of the Labor Arbiter’s decision on 31 July 1996 as claimed by them, they
had only until 10 August 1996 to file the appeal; and although that date was a
Saturday, it was still a business day. Hence, the appeal should have been, at the latest, filed on that date
per Olacao v. NLRC.[5]
After the filing
by the petitioners of a Reply to the OSG’s Comment, we gave due course to the
petition and resolved to decide it even without the Comment of the private
respondent.
The sole issue
in this petition is the timeliness of the petitioners’ appeal from the Labor
Arbiter’s decision.
We are convinced
that the petitioners received a copy of the Labor Arbiter’s decision on 31 July
1996 as evidenced by the certification of the Postmaster of Manila Central Post
Office, which has stood unrebutted before the NLRC. It must be stressed that the registry return receipt,[6] which was NLRC’s basis for its
finding that the petitioners received a copy of the Labor Arbiter’s decision on
30 July 1996, does not indubitably show that the registered letter subject
thereof was received on 30 July 1996. The figure after 3 on the line Date is unclear; it may be
read as 0 or 1. Whatever doubt that may be reached thereon was resolved in favor of 31
July 1996 by the unrebutted certification of the Postmaster.
Accordingly, the
petitioners had ten calendar days from 31 July 1996, or until 10 August 1996,
within which to appeal from the decision pursuant to Article 223 of the Labor
Code. Fortunately for the petitioners,
10 August 1996 was a Saturday. Section
1, Rule VI, of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC pertinently provides:
Section 1. Periods of Appeal…. If the 10th … day … falls on a Saturday, Sunday or a holiday, the last day to perfect the appeal shall be the next working day. (As amended on Nov. 7, 1991).
The next working
day after 10 August 1996 was 12 August 1996, the date the petitioners
filed their Notice of Appeal with Memorandum of Appeal.[7] Unquestionably their appeal was
filed on time. Public respondent NLRC,
therefore, committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal and in
subsequently denying the first motion for reconsideration despite unrebutted
proof that the petitioners received a copy of the Labor Arbiter’s decision on
31 July 1996.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is
GRANTED. The challenged resolution of
15 October 1996 and 20 November 1996 of public respondent National Labor
Relations Commission in NLRC Case No. V-0003-96 are SET ASIDE. The said Commission is hereby DIRECTED to
resolve on the merits, with reasonable dispatch, petitioners’ appeal from the
decision of 19 July 1996 of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC Case No. RAB-0006-96
(OCW); and for that purpose, the records of this case should be immediately
remanded to the Commission.
No
pronouncements as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
[1] Annex “A” of Petition, Rollo, 22-23.
[2] Annex “A-1,” Petition, Rollo, 24-25.
[3] Annex “A-2,” Petition, Rollo, 26-27.
[4] Annex “B” of Petition, Rollo,
85. The certification reads:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to certify that per
record on file Registered Letter No. RC-245 (with Delivery No. 7038) posted at
Cebu Capitol Post Office addressed to Atty. Valentin M. Panaguiton at 2/F
Champ. Bldg., Bonifacio Drive, Post Area, Manila was duly delivered to and
received by Gerardo D. Atoy, Representative on July 31, 1996.
[5] 177 SCRA 38 [1989], citing SM Agri and General
Machineries v. NLRC, 169 SCRA 20 [1989].
[6] Annex “D” of Petition, Rollo, 86.
[7] Annex “B” of Petition, Rollo, 30-46.