Gelmart Industries Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Gelmart Industries Philippines, Inc. (Gelmart), an export-oriented enterprise employing approximately 8,000 workers, faced a walk-out staged by its employees, members of respondent National Union of Garments, Textiles, Cordage and Allied Workers of the Philippines (Gatcord). The walk-out was in protest against Gelmart's alleged refusal to implement a wage increase clause in their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and to implement P.D. No. 1123, which mandated an emergency per capita allowance. Gelmart had a pending application for exemption from P.D. No. 1123. Procedural History: On August 2, 1977, the Undersecretary of Labor ordered the striking workers to return to work within 48 hours or face termination and directed Gelmart to pay the CBA wage increase. The matter of the P.D. No. 1123 allowance was held in abeyance pending Gelmart's exemption application. All strikers returned except 334. Gelmart's application for exemption was denied on August 4, 1977, and it complied with P.D. No. 1123. Gelmart then applied for clearance to terminate the 334 workers who did not return, placing them under preventive suspension. The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office approved the preventive suspension and referred the termination issue to the Executive Labor Arbiter. The Executive Labor Arbiter declared the walk-out illegal, granted Gelmart's termination application, but ordered the reinstatement without backwages of 63 workers who were absent for justifiable causes. Gatcord appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), seeking backwages for the 63 reinstated workers and reinstatement with backwages for three specific employees. The NLRC modified the Executive Labor Arbiter's decision, awarding full backwages to the 63 workers from their preventive suspension until reinstatement and ordering the reinstatement with backwages for the three employees. The Petition: Gelmart filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the NLRC's decision, primarily on the ground that Gatcord's appeal to the NLRC was filed out of time, thus divesting the NLRC of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) acquired jurisdiction over the appeal filed by respondent Gatcord, considering it was filed beyond the reglementary period; and whether petitioner Gelmart is estopped from assailing the NLRC's decision on the ground of tardiness of the appeal. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in awarding backwages to the sixty-three (63) employees.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court is lifted. No pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and estoppel: The Court held that petitioner Gelmart is estopped from assailing the NLRC's decision on the ground that Gatcord's appeal was filed out of time. While it is acknowledged that Gatcord's appeal was filed four days beyond the reglementary period of ten working days, Gelmart failed to question the NLRC's jurisdiction before the NLRC itself. Gelmart received a copy of Gatcord's Appeal-Memorandum on October 13, 1978, and the NLRC rendered its decision on April 22, 1980, a period of approximately one and a half years, during which Gelmart did not take any action to impugn the NLRC's jurisdiction. Furthermore, Gelmart failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC's decision before elevating the matter to the Supreme Court. The Court cited the principle that it would be inequitable to permit a party to assail a decision before a higher court on grounds of lack of jurisdiction after having participated in the proceedings before the tribunal whose jurisdiction is being questioned, especially after a considerable lapse of time. The Court also noted that the service of the Appeal-Memorandum, even if sent "care of" Gelmart's address, was addressed to its counsel, Atty. Armando V. Ampil, and it is presumed that Gelmart, in the ordinary course of business, would forward it to its counsel. Moreover, technical rules of procedure are not strictly binding in labor proceedings. On the merits of the NLRC decision regarding backwages: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. The Executive Labor Arbiter himself found that the failure of the sixty-three (63) private respondents to report for work was for justifiable causes, such as illness or validated absences. Consequently, the NLRC correctly held that these workers were entitled not only to reinstatement but also to backwages from the time of their preventive suspension until their actual reinstatement. The Court reasoned that under these circumstances, there was no lawful basis for the preventive suspension of these 63 workers, as petitioner Gelmart had effectively prevented them from working. The Court clarified that this ruling excluded seventeen (17) workers who, despite notices, failed to report back and were deemed to have abandoned their rights, and confirmed that the forty-six (46) other workers reinstated immediately after the Executive Labor Arbiter's decision were entitled to backwages.
Main Doctrine
A party who fails to question the jurisdiction of a tribunal on the ground of tardiness of an appeal before the tribunal itself, and instead proceeds to participate in the proceedings and only assails the tribunal's decision before a higher court, is deemed estopped from claiming lack of jurisdiction on appeal.