Orient Express Placement Philippines v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Orient Express Placement Phils. (Orient), through its President and General Manager Dominador Batenga, Jr., dismissed private respondent Ma. Luisa P. Collins, its liaison officer, on suspicion of charging excessive placement fees from applicants seeking overseas employment. The dismissal occurred on November 9, 1993, shortly after private respondent explained herself during a meeting where she was confronted with the charge. Procedural History: On November 17, 1993, private respondent filed a complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal, various monetary claims, damages, and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of private respondent, finding no substantial evidence to prove the charge, noting that it was Jose Batenga, Dominador Batenga, Jr.'s cousin, who directed the charging of excessive fees and signed receipts. The Labor Arbiter also found that Orient failed to comply with the twin requirements of notice and hearing, thus violating private respondent's right to due process, and awarded moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. The Petition: Petitioners appealed to the NLRC, which agreed with the Labor Arbiter that the charges were unsubstantiated and that the dismissal lacked due process. However, the NLRC deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees for lack of legal basis, finding no sufficient proof of fraud or bad faith. Both petitioners and private respondent filed tardy motions for reconsideration of the NLRC decision. The present petition seeks to reverse the NLRC's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition should be dismissed on the ground of tardy filing of the motion for reconsideration. Whether the award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees deleted by the NLRC should be restored, notwithstanding the tardy filing of private respondent's motion for reconsideration.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The NLRC's decision is deemed final and executory as regards both petitioners and private respondent due to their respective tardy filings of their motions for reconsideration.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the petition's dismissal due to tardy filing: The Court held that the late filing by petitioners of their motion for reconsideration is fatal to the present petition. In the absence of a motion for reconsideration timely filed within the ten-day reglementary period, the assailed order, resolution, or decision of the NLRC becomes final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof. This principle is well-established in jurisprudence and is supported by procedural rules. On the issue of restoring the deleted awards: The Court denied private respondent's plea to restore the award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. This is notwithstanding her categorical admission that her own motion for reconsideration was likewise filed out of time. The Court reasoned that to the same extent that the NLRC decision must be deemed final and executory as regards petitioners, the same decision cannot be otherwise as regards private respondent. Therefore, the Court could not oblige private respondent to have the deleted awards reinstated.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration filed beyond the ten-day reglementary period is considered tardy and renders the assailed resolution or decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) final and executory.