Andaya v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners were employees of General Milling Corporation (GMC) and members of the Associated Labor Unions-VINCONTU (ALU). A Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between GMC and ALU contained a union security clause requiring union membership. Seven petitioners actively campaigned for a new union, IBM, leading to their expulsion from ALU and subsequent termination from GMC. Ten other petitioners were also expelled from ALU and subsequently terminated by GMC. 2. Procedural History: For the first seven petitioners, a joint application for clearance to dismiss was filed and granted by the Regional Director, leading to their dismissal. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice, which was consolidated. The Labor Arbiter ordered their reinstatement with backwages. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, affirming the clearance to terminate. For the other ten petitioners, a joint application for clearance was also filed and granted, leading to their dismissal. Their appeal to the NLRC of the Labor Arbiter's decision sustaining their dismissal was dismissed for being filed out of the reglementary period. 3. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking to annul the decisions of the NLRC in the consolidated cases. They argued that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming their dismissal. The Supreme Court noted a procedural issue regarding the timeliness of the petition for certiorari for the first seven petitioners, finding it was filed more than four years after the NLRC's denial of their motion for reconsideration, thus not within a reasonable time. For the other ten petitioners, the Court affirmed the NLRC's finding that their appeal to the NLRC was filed beyond the ten-day reglementary period.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari was filed within a reasonable time with respect to the seven petitioners. Whether the appeal of the ten petitioners was filed within the reglementary period.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court found that the petition for certiorari filed by the seven petitioners was not filed within a reasonable time, and the appeal filed by the ten petitioners was filed beyond the reglementary period.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition for certiorari for the seven petitioners: The Court agreed with respondent ALU that the petition for certiorari was not filed within a reasonable time. The NLRC En Banc denied the motion for reconsideration of the seven petitioners on June 4, 1981. The instant petition was filed on February 26, 1986, more than four years later. The petitioners failed to establish the jurisdictional fact that the petition was filed within a reasonable time and did not offer any explanation for the significant delay. The Court reiterated that while Rule 65 does not prescribe a definite time frame, jurisprudence has established that it must be filed within a reasonable time, defined as the time necessary for a prudent and diligent person to act. A delay of four months was previously held to be unreasonable, making the more than four-year delay in this case clearly unacceptable. On the timeliness of the appeal for the ten petitioners: The Court affirmed the NLRC's ruling that the appeal was filed outside the reglementary period. Under Article 223 of the Labor Code, an appeal from a labor arbiter's decision must be filed within ten (10) days from notice. The ten-day period includes calendar days. Even if the decision was received on October 5, 1977, as alleged by petitioners, the appeal by mail was filed on October 18, 1977, and appeal fees were paid on October 19, 1977, both dates falling outside the ten-day reglementary period. The perfection of an appeal within the prescribed period is jurisdictional, and failure to do so renders the judgment final and executory.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari must be filed within a reasonable time, and failure to perfect an appeal within the period prescribed by law is jurisdictional, rendering the judgment final and executory.