539 Phil. 220
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby entered:On appeal by petitioners, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) issued a Resolution modifying the Labor Arbiter's Decision, thus:
- Declaring complainants' (Requillo, Dahang, Jr., Ruaza, Buhangin, and Tabla) dismissal illegal;
- Dismissing complainant Liberato Peril's complaint for the reason that the same has already prescribed; and
- Ordering respondents USWCA and/or Jaime Amamio and Philippine Ports Authority, Surigao City to jointly and severally pay complainants the following:
DANUCO, C. a) Salary Differentials P13,724.10 b) 13th Month Pay 10,703.25 c) Service Incentive Leave Pay (2 Years) 1,070.00 TOTAL P25,497.35 REQUILLO, DAHANG JR., RUAZA, BUHANGIN TABLA a) Unpaid Salaries (June 1-30, 1997)P4,2999.90 each
P21,499.50 b) Premium Pay for Holidays 1) REQUILLO P2,735.00 2) BUHANGIN, RUAZA, and DAHANG, JR. P3,377.00 each 3) TABLA 585.00 13,401.00 c) Premium Pay for Rest Day 1) REQUILLO 3,208.80 2) BUHANGIN, RUAZA and DAHANG 4,878.00 each 18,579.75 3) TABLA 737.10 SUB-TOTAL P79,027.75- Ordering respondents UPSWCA and/or Jaime Amamio to pay complainants the following:
REQUILLO, RUAZA, DAHANG, TABLA A. Backwages P45,148.95 P225,744.75 (from 01 June 1997 to 16 April 1998) B. Damages 5,000.00 each 25,000.00 (for illegal dismissal and ULP) SUB-TOTAL P250, 744.75 TOTAL P329,772.50 Attorney's Fees 32,977.25 (10% of total monetary award) GRAND TOTAL P362,749.75
Complainants' other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
PREMISES considered, the decision of the Labor Arbiter is MODIFIED. The Labor Arbiter's awards for backwages, damages, and attorney's fees are ordered deleted, as well as the awards granted to Constancio Danuco. The award for salaries of complainants for the month of June 1997 are maintained as well as the awards for premium pay for holidays and premium pay for rest days.Dissatisfied, respondents filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 54449. They alleged, among others, that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in giving due course to petitioners' appeal filed beyond the reglementary period.
Complainants are ordered reinstated without backwages.
SO ORDERED.
First of all, although there was an allegation in the appeal that the Decision of the Labor Arbiter was received on April 27, 1998, there is substantial evidence to show that it could not have been so as asseverated by petitioners. The registry return slips addressed to Jaime Amamio and Atty. Estanislao Ebarle show a significant difference when compared to the registry return slips addressed to PPA, Willie Requillo and Atty. Hector Tayapad. The first two (2) return slips do not bear the rubber stamped print that the mailed decision was registered and that it was posted on April 22, 1998 at Butuan City. Likewise, they do not have the required stamp affixed to a return slip. This is in stark contrast to the other return slips addressed to PPA, Willie Requillo and Atty. Hector Tayapad. Considering such patent irregularity, we find that the registry return slips addressed to private respondent Jaime Amamio and his counsel Atty. Estanislao Ebarle are not the original return slips of the Decision of the Labor Arbiter. The non-submission of the original return slips is an indication that if the originals were submitted they would reveal that private respondent Jaime Amamio and Atty. Estanislao Ebarle received the Decision of the Labor Arbiter not on April 27, 1998 but on a much earlier date.We find no cogent reason to deviate from the above findings. Settled is the rule that issues raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, only involve questions of law, not questions of fact.
Rule 131, Section 3 (e) of the Revised Rules of Evidence provides that 'evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.' There being no contradictory evidence to debunk such supposition, the presumption stands.
Thus, the appeal not having been filed within the ten (10) day period to appeal, the appeal filed by private respondents before the NLRC should not have been given due course.
x x x
Consequently, the failure of private respondents to perfect the appeal in accordance with the prescribed procedure renders the same ineffective to stop the running of the ten (10) day reglementary period to appeal. x x x.
ART. 223. Appeals. – Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders, x x x.In Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[3] we held that the above provision governs appeals from awards or final orders of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC. The right to appeal is not part of due process but a mere statutory privilege that has to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Since the perfection of an appeal within the statutory reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional,[4] petitioners' failure to perfect their appeal to the NLRC seasonably rendered the Labor Arbiter's Decision final and executory. Accordingly, the NLRC has no jurisdiction to give due course to petitioners' appeal, much less render a Resolution modifying the Labor Arbiter's Decision. Indeed, such Resolution is a patent nullity for want of jurisdiction.