United Placement International v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Private respondents Leonardo Arazas, Livy Dacillo, and Cesar Hernandez applied for overseas employment with Placementhaus and General Services. They paid a placement fee of P19,300.00 each to Virgilio Reyes of Placementhaus, without receiving receipts. They were subsequently provided with employment contracts and notices of employment issued by United Placement International (UPI), purportedly for deployment to Saudi Arabia. After only five months, their employment contracts were pre-terminated, and they were sent back to the Philippines. 2. Procedural History: Upon their return, the private respondents filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) against Placementhaus and UPI for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of bonus, and refund of placement fees. Despite numerous scheduled hearings and a change of address by UPI, the POEA issued an order holding Placementhaus solely responsible for the refund. Subsequently, the POEA rendered a decision ordering both respondents, jointly and severally, to pay the complainants their equivalent salaries for the unexpired portion of their contracts. The POEA sent its decision by registered mail to UPI's old address, which was returned unclaimed. Approximately one year later, UPI appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC dismissed the appeal as having been filed beyond the reglementary period, a decision later affirmed by a minute resolution denying UPI's motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: Petitioner UPI seeks reversal of the NLRC's resolution, arguing that its appeal was timely filed. UPI contends that the service of the POEA decision to its old address should not be the starting point for the appeal period, especially since its change of address was sanctioned by the POEA. Instead, UPI asserts that the appeal period should commence from September 1, 1989, when it claims to have received the decision through the initiative of Luz R. Abad, making its appeal filed on September 11, 1989, within the ten-day reglementary period. UPI also claims denial of due process.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal filed by petitioner United Placement International with the National Labor Relations Commission was filed within the reglementary period; and whether the service of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration's decision to petitioner's former address constituted valid notice, thereby rendering the appeal belated. Whether petitioner was denied due process.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission dismissing the appeal of petitioner United Placement International. The Court held that the appeal was filed beyond the reglementary period and that petitioner was not denied due process. Costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the appeal and validity of service: The Court held that petitioner's argument that the service of the POEA decision to its old address should not be considered the starting point of the reglementary period for appeal is bereft of merit. The notice of change of address, though acknowledged by the POEA Licensing and Evaluation Department, pertained to the licensing and regulation of overseas employment participants, not the adjudication of complaints. In adjudicatory cases, the hearing officer is bound by the records before him, and parties are responsible for ensuring that official communications reach them at their correct addresses. The Court clarified that service by registered mail is complete not just upon actual receipt but also if the addressee fails to claim the mail within five days from the first notice, in which case service takes effect at the expiration of that period, pursuant to Section 8, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, which applies suppletorily. Therefore, petitioner was deemed to have received the decision on August 9, 1988, and had ten days from that date to appeal to the NLRC. The appeal filed on September 11, 1989, was thus clearly beyond the reglementary period. The Court emphasized that the timely perfection of an appeal is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. On the denial of due process: The Court found that petitioner's asseveration of denial of due process was not borne out by the records. Notices had been sent to petitioner's Binondo office for seven hearing dates even before the POEA acknowledged its transfer to Makati. The Court noted that it would appear that petitioner simply ignored these notices, with Luz R. Abad herself considering the complaint a "nuisance suit." The Court reiterated that what the law proscribes is the lack of opportunity to be heard, and this opportunity was sufficiently accorded to petitioner. The Court also made two final reminders: a minute resolution disposing of a motion for reconsideration with legal basis is not improper, and the timely perfection of an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional.
Main Doctrine
The timely perfection of an appeal is not only mandatory but likewise jurisdictional in character. Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or if the addressee fails to claim the mail within five days from the first notice, service takes effect at the expiration of said period. Parties are incumbent upon to make certain that official communications properly reach them at their correct addresses.