Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Commission and Rodolfo Yanguas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rodolfo Yanguas, employed by Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) since 1951 and holding the position of Cable Foreman SJG-2, was informed of his impending dismissal due to alleged incompetence and inefficiency. The company's application for termination cited Yanguas's alleged negligence in supervising an employee, Vicente Rebong, who was involved in the theft and sale of PLDT materials. Specifically, PLDT claimed Yanguas falsely credited Rebong with full attendance on days Rebong was absent, thereby facilitating the theft and falsifying records. Yanguas countered that the dismissal lacked basis and was motivated by a desire to avoid paying retirement benefits, highlighting his long tenure and satisfactory performance. Procedural History: On September 23, 1980, PLDT filed an application with the Ministry of Labor and Employment to terminate Yanguas's services. In response, Yanguas filed a complaint on October 15, 1980, for illegal dismissal and suspension, which also served as his opposition to PLDT's application. Labor Arbiter Mirasol Corleto, on March 16, 1981, ruled that Yanguas's negligence did not warrant dismissal and that the penalty was too severe. While granting PLDT clearance to terminate Yanguas, the Arbiter ordered PLDT to pay Yanguas P94,050.00 in retirement benefits, considering his 29 years of service and eligibility for optional retirement. PLDT received notice of this decision on March 23, 1981, through its receiving section, though its counsel on record, Atty. Jesus F. Villarroya, received a copy on March 26, 1981. The Petition: PLDT appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on April 10, 1981, solely concerning the award of retirement benefits. The NLRC dismissed the appeal on January 20, 1982, deeming it filed beyond the reglementary period. The NLRC calculated the ten-day appeal period from the March 23, 1981, receipt by PLDT's general receiving section. PLDT filed this petition for review, arguing that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by dismissing its appeal. The core of PLDT's argument is that service of the Labor Arbiter's decision on March 23, 1981, was invalid because it was made to the company's general receiving section and not directly to its counsel of record, Atty. Villarroya, whose address was clearly indicated. PLDT contends that proper service occurred only on March 26, 1981, when a copy was received by the Legal Services Division, making its appeal timely. The petition thus seeks to have the NLRC's resolution set aside and its appeal given due course.
Issue(s)
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's appeal for being filed beyond the reglementary period, considering the validity of the service of the Labor Arbiter's decision. From what date should the ten (10) day period to appeal be computed, given the circumstances of service.
Ruling
The resolution of the respondent National Labor Relations Commission dated January 20, 1982, is hereby set aside. The respondent Commission is ordered to give due course to the petitioner company's appeal in NLRC Case No. 10-8864-80. The temporary restraining order issued on April 14, 1982, enjoining the respondents from enforcing the resolution dated January 20, 1982, is made permanent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the appeal and the validity of service: The Court held that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing PLDT's appeal for being filed out of time. The reglementary period for appeal is ten (10) working days. The crucial issue was the proper computation of this period, which hinged on the validity of the service of the Labor Arbiter's decision. PLDT argued that service on its receiving clerk on March 23, 1981, was invalid because service should have been made upon its counsel of record, Atty. Jesus F. Villarroya, whose address was clearly indicated on the notice as the 9th floor of the PLDT Building. The Court agreed with PLDT, citing Section 2, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court, which mandates that service upon a party represented by counsel must be made upon the attorney, unless the court orders otherwise. The Court emphasized that service upon the party himself is not legally considered when an attorney is on record. The bailiff's return indicated service on March 23, 1981, at the ground floor, which was not the counsel's address of record. The Court found this service to be invalid, as it did not comply with the rule requiring service at the attorney's address of record. Practical considerations and the realities of modern multi-storied buildings, where a general receiving clerk might not distinguish between various types of communications, further supported the invalidity of the service. The Court noted that a proper and valid service was only deemed to have been made when the Legal Services Division of PLDT received a copy of the decision on March 26, 1981. Therefore, the ten (10) working days for appeal should be computed from March 26, 1981, making the appeal filed on April 10, 1981, timely. The Court reiterated that rules on service are not mere technicalities but are founded on considerations of fair play, ensuring that parties have adequate time to protect their interests through their counsel.
Main Doctrine
Service of notice of a decision upon a party's receiving clerk at the ground floor of a multi-storied building, instead of the counsel's address of record on a higher floor, does not constitute valid service for the purpose of computing the reglementary period to appeal, as such service is not in accordance with the rules of procedure and practical considerations for fair play.