Domingo Ramones v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Domingo Ramones was recruited by private respondent Constellation Manpower Recruitment, Inc. to work as a bodybuilder for its foreign principal, Marwan Establishment for Investment and Marketing (Marwan), under a two-year contract. On February 7, 1985, petitioner received a notice of termination effective 30 days thereafter. Approximately three days later, Marwan officials confiscated petitioner's IQAMA (Saudi Arabian identification card), restricting his movement. On March 10, 1985, petitioner signed a certificate of release and received SR3,959.05 as final settlement. Procedural History: On April 15, 1985, petitioner filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salaries and overtime pay, and illegal reduction of salaries and contract substitution. The POEA rendered a decision in favor of petitioner on November 6, 1986, ordering the respondent to pay US $3,684.99 for unexpired portion of the contract and airfare, plus attorney's fees. The Petition: Private respondent failed to file an appeal within the reglementary period. Instead, it filed an "Urgent Motion for Relief From Decision Dated November 6, 1986 And/Or Motion For Reconsideration" on December 5, 1986, attributing its failure to appeal to the excusable negligence of its counsel, Atty. Antonio A. San Vicente, who had been appointed Labor Attache in New York and left the country on November 19, 1986. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) considered this negligence excusable, treated the motion as an appeal, set aside the POEA decision, and dismissed the complaint. Petitioner seeks to reinstate the POEA decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in treating private respondent's motion as an appeal despite the POEA decision having become final and executory. Whether the negligence of private respondent's counsel in failing to file an appeal within the reglementary period was excusable.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The questioned Decision of the NLRC promulgated October 31, 1989, and the Resolution promulgated April 30, 1990, are declared NULL AND VOID ab initio. The POEA decision promulgated November 6, 1986, is REINSTATED and DECLARED as now final and executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court held that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in considering the departure of private respondent's counsel, Atty. Antonio A. San Vicente, as excusable negligence. The Court noted that Atty. San Vicente was appointed Labor Attache on June 20, 1985, and his departure was anticipated. A prudent party would have taken steps to ensure continuity of representation, such as securing a collaborating counsel or a new one. The negligence of counsel binds the client. Even assuming the appointment and departure occurred close to the receipt of the POEA decision, Atty. San Vicente still had sufficient time to inform the private respondent's general manager about the decision and the need to act. His failure to do so constituted negligence and dereliction of duty, which was not excusable. On the issue of excusable negligence and the finality and executory nature of the POEA decision: The Court emphasized that the Labor Code provides a specific procedure for appeals, including a mandatory ten (10) day period from receipt of the decision within which to appeal. This period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. The POEA Rules and Regulations explicitly state that if no appeal is perfected within the said period, the decision becomes final and executory. A motion for reconsideration is treated as an appeal, but an appeal filed out of time or non-compliant with requirements shall be denied. Therefore, the POEA decision had long become final and executory, and the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in reopening the case. It is a hornbook doctrine that a final and executory decision cannot be amended, altered, or modified, as it becomes the law of the case.
Main Doctrine
The National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in considering the departure of private respondent's counsel as excusable negligence, thereby allowing an appeal of a final and executory decision. The failure to file an appeal within the reglementary period, due to counsel's negligence, binds the client and does not warrant relief when a specific procedural remedy is provided by law.