G.R. No. L-71177 - FEBRUARY 1988 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-71177February 29, 1988Erectors, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-73116February 29, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Primitivo Avanzado, Sr. G.R. No. L-73867February 29, 1988Telefast Communications/Philippine Wireless, Inc. vs. Ignacio Castro, et al. G.R. No. L-76464February 29, 1988Testate Estate of the Late Adriana Maloto vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-76690February 29, 1988Claudia Rivera Sanchez vs. Mariano C. Tupas G.R. No. L-78299February 29, 1988G & G Trading Corporation vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-31426February 29, 1988Luz Caro vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-34344February 29, 1988Ricardo Aguirre, et al, vs. Jose Dumlao G.R. No. L-35512February 29, 1988Republic of the Philippines vs. J. Numeriano G. Estenzo G.R. No. L-36021February 29, 1988Agustin N. Medina vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. L-36527February 29, 1988Collector of Customs vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-39013February 29, 1988Francisco Bunag vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-41979February 29, 1988Matilde Sanchez Lim vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-42624February 29, 1988Ana C. Barcenas vs. the Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-44822February 29,1988Espirita B. Buendia vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-46953February 29, 1988Jose N. Mayuga, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-48112February 29, 1988The People of the Philippines vs. Mariano B. Monton G.R. No. L-48546February 29, 1988Summit Guaranty & Insurance Company vs. Gregoria C. Arnaldo G.R. No. L-48969February 29, 1988Belen L. Vda. De Guia vs. Rosario R. Veloso G.R. No. L-51983February 29, 1988Adoracion Valera Bringas vs. Harold M. Hernando G.R. No. L-55397February 29, 1988Tai Tong Chuache & Company vs. the Insurance Commission G.R. No. L-59266February 29, 1988Silvestre Dignos vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-60007February 29, 1988Noe C. Baja vs. Antonia Corpuz Macandog G.R. No. L-60443February 29, 1988Constantino Alvarez, Jr. et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-68636February 29,1988Northern Cement Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-75067February 26, 1988Puma Sportschuhfabriken R. Dassler, K.G., vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-76597February 26, 1988Tomas Lao vs. Leticia Abianda To-Chip G.R. No. L-76648February 26, 1988Heirs of the Late Matilde Montinola-Sanson vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. L-76954-55February 26, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Beniano Renejane, et al. G.R. No. L-30360February 26, 1988Nicolas Salamanca, et al. vs. Faustino Ramos, et al. G.R. No. L-30852February 26, 1988City of Iligan vs. Director of Lands, Lanao Del Norte G.R. No. L-32055February 26, 1988Reynaldo Bermudez, Sr. and Adonito Yabut Bermundez vs. Judge A. Melencio-Herrera, et al. G.R. No. L-32600February 26,1988People of the Philippines vs. Feliciano Belmonte, et al. G.R. No. L-34978February 26, 1988Angeles C. Vda. De Lat, et al. vs. Public Service Commission G.R. No. L-35647February 26, 1988Industrial & Commercial Factors, Inc. vs. Aurora S. Marasigan G.R. No. L-38892February 26, 1988Benito Legarda, et al. vs. J. Victoriano Savellano, et al. G.R. No. L-43766February 26, 1988Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-44301February 26, 1988Merardo A. Velasquez vs. Romeo D. Magat, et al. G.R. No. L-49808February 26, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Arnulfo Aquino G.R. No. L-54223February 26, 1988Baby Bus Inc., vs. Minister of Labor G.R. No. L-55062February 26, 1988San Miguel Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission A.C. No. 3086February 23, 1988Alexander Padilla vs. J. Baltazar R. Dizon G.R. No. L-72870February 23, 1988Teodoro R. Pulido vs. Manuel M. Lazaro G.R. No. L-74517February 23, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Benny Dy G.R. No. L-37736February 23, 1988Antonio L. Evangelista vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-39084February 23, 1988Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) vs. Emilio V. Salas G.R. No. L-59621February 23, 1988Maximiliano Alvarez vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-65114February 23, 1988Rene Knecht vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-60578February 23, 1988Paterno D. Escudero vs. Ceferino E. Dulay G.R. No. L-69844February 23, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Romeo M. Policarpio G.R. No. L-59514February 25, 1988Paciano Remalante vs. Cornelia Tibe A.C. No. 3135February 17, 1988Miguel Cuenco vs. Marcelo B. Fernan G.R. No. L-77716February 17, 1988Dr. Corazon Diaz-Leus vs. Hernani Melvida G.R. No. L-28896February 17, 1988Comm. of Internal Revenue vs. Algue, Inc. G.R. No. L-75377February 17, 1988Chua Keng Giap vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-46585February 8, 1988Angela V. Ginson vs. Mun. of Murcia Erectors, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionPeople of the Philippines vs. Primitivo Avanzado, Sr.Telefast Communications/Philippine Wireless, Inc. vs. Ignacio Castro, et al.Testate Estate of the Late Adriana Maloto vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Claudia Rivera Sanchez vs. Mariano C. TupasG & G Trading Corporation vs. Court of AppealsLuz Caro vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Ricardo Aguirre, et al, vs. Jose DumlaoRepublic of the Philippines vs. J. Numeriano G. EstenzoAgustin N. Medina vs. Court of Appeals, et al,Collector of Customs vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Francisco Bunag vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Matilde Sanchez Lim vs. Court of AppealsAna C. Barcenas vs. the Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al.Espirita B. Buendia vs. Workmen's Compensation CommissionJose N. Mayuga, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.The People of the Philippines vs. Mariano B. MontonSummit Guaranty & Insurance Company vs. Gregoria C. ArnaldoBelen L. Vda. De Guia vs. Rosario R. VelosoAdoracion Valera Bringas vs. Harold M. HernandoTai Tong Chuache & Company vs. the Insurance CommissionSilvestre Dignos vs. Court of AppealsNoe C. Baja vs. Antonia Corpuz MacandogConstantino Alvarez, Jr. et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Northern Cement Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPuma Sportschuhfabriken R. Dassler, K.G., vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtTomas Lao vs. Leticia Abianda To-ChipHeirs of the Late Matilde Montinola-Sanson vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Beniano Renejane, et al.Nicolas Salamanca, et al. vs. Faustino Ramos, et al.City of Iligan vs. Director of Lands, Lanao Del NorteReynaldo Bermudez, Sr. and Adonito Yabut Bermundez vs. Judge A. Melencio-Herrera, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Feliciano Belmonte, et al.Angeles C. Vda. De Lat, et al. vs. Public Service CommissionIndustrial & Commercial Factors, Inc. vs. Aurora S. MarasiganBenito Legarda, et al. vs. J. Victoriano Savellano, et al.Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Merardo A. Velasquez vs. Romeo D. Magat, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Arnulfo AquinoBaby Bus Inc., vs. Minister of LaborSan Miguel Corporation vs. National Labor Relations CommissionAlexander Padilla vs. J. Baltazar R. DizonTeodoro R. Pulido vs. Manuel M. LazaroPeople of the Philippines vs. Benny DyAntonio L. Evangelista vs. Court of AppealsPhilippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) vs. Emilio V. SalasMaximiliano Alvarez vs. Court of AppealsRene Knecht vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Paterno D. Escudero vs. Ceferino E. DulayPeople of the Philippines vs. Romeo M. PolicarpioPaciano Remalante vs. Cornelia TibeMiguel Cuenco vs. Marcelo B. FernanDr. Corazon Diaz-Leus vs. Hernani MelvidaComm. of Internal Revenue vs. Algue, Inc.Chua Keng Giap vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtAngela V. Ginson vs. Mun. of Murcia
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-71177 February 29, 1988
ERECTORS, INC.,petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND DANILO CRIS,respondents.
SARMIENTO,J.:
This case should not have reached this Tribunal. It should have, in fact, been terminated three years ago but for the petitioner's counsels who had the temerity to cite a non-existent law with the obvious intention of delaying the proceedings if not outrightly evading financial responsibility under the law. This actuation, indeed, is flagrant dishonesty. We cannot let it pass.
But before we proceed, a recital of the background of the controversy is in order.
The private respondent, Danilo Cris, a contract worker as Earthworks Engineer in Taif, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, filed the case with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) on February 27, 1984 for the illegal termination of his contract of employment with the petitioner herein, Erectors, Inc. The petitioner, as a defense, contended that the private respondent was estopped from questioning the legality of his termination as he already voluntarily and freely received his termination pay. The POEA, on September 27,1984, rendered a decision adverse to petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered ordering the respondents ERECTORS, INC. and SOCIETE AUXILLAIRE D'ENTERPRISES (S.A.E.) jointly and severally, to pay the complainant, DANILO CRIS the sum of SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY SIX DOLLARS AND SIXTY SIX CENTS ($ 7,166.6), or its equivalent in Philippine Currency at the time of actual payment, representing the unpaid salaries for the unexpired term of complainant's contract.1
The decision was received by the petitioner on October 25, 1984. Fifteen days later, or on November 9 of the same year, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The motion which was treated as an appeal was dismissed by the NLRC "for having been filed out of time."2
The petitioner, through counsel, alleged that the respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case and affirmed that the motion for reconsideration or appeal was seasonably filed explaining thus:
x x x x x x x x x
While it is true that between25 October 1984(date of receipt of the POEA decision) and09 November 1984(actual date of filing of petitioner's motion for reconsideration), there were actually fifteen (15) calendar days, however, it can not be disputed that within said period there were only ten (10) working days, and five (5) non-working or legal holidays, which were as follows:
| October 26, 1984 | --Saturday |
| October 27,1984 | --Sunday |
| November 1, 1984 | --All Saint's Day |
| November 3, 1984 | --Saturday |
| November 4, 1984 | --Sunday3 |
x x x x x x x x x
In support of its contention, the petitioner cited two provisions allegedly of the 1984 POEA rules and procedures, specifying Rule XXIV, sec. 1, and Rule XXV, sec. 2, thereof, which purportedly provide:
Rule XXV
x x x x x x x x x
Section 2.Finality of Decision, Order or Award — all decisions, orders or award shall become final after the lapse of ten (10) working days from receipt of a copy thereof by the parties and no appeal has been perfected within same period.
RULE XXIV
Section 1. Motion for Reconsideration. — The aggrieved party may withinten (10) working daysfrom receipt of the decision, order or resolution of the Administration, may file for a motion for reconsideration; otherwise, the decision shall be final and executory (Emphasis supplied)4
These cited rules do not exist. Nowhere in any law or rules relative to the POEA may the above provisions be found.
The POEA was created only on May 1, 1982 by virtue of Executive Order No. 797. Pursuant to the said Executive Order, the then Minister of Labor, Blas F. Ople promulgated on September 5, 1983 the POEA Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment which took effect on January 1, 1984. These 1984 Rules were superseded on May 21, 1985 by the POEA Rules & Regulations.
For the reason that the petitioner's appeal with the NLRC was filed on November 9,1984, the 1984 Rules should govern. And this was precisely what the petitioner insisted upon — the POEA rules obtaining in 1984 must be applied.5Yet therein, it is clear that the period for perfecting an appeal or a Motion for Reconsideration is ten (10) calendar days. The pertinent rule on the matter is found in Book VII, Rule 5, of the 1984 Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment (POEA/MOLE) to wit:
Section 1. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR APPEAL. The aggrieved party may, within ten (10)calendar daysfrom receipt of the decision, order or resolution file a motion for reconsideration which shall specify in detail the particular errors and objections, otherwise the decision shall be final and executory. Such motion for reconsideration shall be treated as an appeal as provided in this Rule otherwise the same shall not be entertained.
The above rule is expressed in a language so simple and precise that there is no necessity to interpret it.
Moreover, as early as 1982, this Court, in the landmark case of Vir-Jen Shipping & Marine Services, Inc. vs. NLRC6construed the ten (10) day period for filing of appeals7from decisions of Labor Arbiters or compulsory arbitrators as ten (10) calendar days, as well as theraison d' etrefor the shorter period, thus:
x x x x x x x x x
...if only because We believe that it is precisely in the interest of labor that the law has commanded that labor cases be promptly, if not peremptorily, disposed of. Long periods for any acts to be done by the contending parties can be taken advantage of more by management than by labor. Most labor claims are decided in their favor and management is generally the appellant. Delay, in most instances, gives the employers more opportunity not only to prepare even ingenious defense, what with well-paid talented lawyers they can afford, but even to wear out the efforts and meager resources of the workers, to the point that not infrequently the latter either give up or compromise for less than what is due them.
x x x x x x x x x
The POEA rule applicable in this case is precisely in consonance with the above ruling in that it expressed in no uncertain terms that the period for appeal is ten (10) calendar days.ℒαwρhi৷For "not even the Secretary of Labor has the power to amend or alter in any material sense whatever the law itself unequivocably specifies or fixes."8
There is, thus, no doubt that the law mandates that the period for filing a motion for reconsideration or appeal with the NLRC is ten (10) calendar days and not ten (10) working days.
It is, therefore, obvious that the counsels for the petitioner deliberately tried to mislead this Court if only to suit their client's ends. On this regard, said counsels have much explaining to do.
WHEREFORE,in view of the foregoing, the Petition is herebyDISMISSEDand the assailed Resolution of the public respondent, dated December 28, 1984,AFFIRMED.The Temporary Restraining Order issued by this Court on July 10, 1985 is herebyLIFTED.The counsels for the petitioner are also admonished for foisting a non-existent rule with the warning that repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. With triple costs against the petitioner.
This Decision isIMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.
SO ORDERED.
Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Paras and Padilla, JJ., concur.
Footnotes