Associated Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Two separate complaints were filed against Associated Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation. Ruben de la Cruz Romano alleged he was employed as a truck driver from October 1, 1973, to December 14, 1994, and claimed underpayment, lack of 13th-month pay, service incentive leave pay, and overtime pay, along with denial of financial assistance upon retirement due to failing eyesight. Lucio L. Maggay filed a similar complaint, stating he was hired in April 1972 as a delivery truck helper and also claimed underpayment and deprivation of statutory benefits. 2. Procedural History: Summons were initially served on Elpidio Ching, identified as the company's owner/manager/president. After Ching's lawyer appeared and had him dropped as a respondent, the petitioner failed to appear for three mandatory conferences. Consequently, the Labor Arbiter proceeded ex parte. On February 21, 1996, the Labor Arbiter granted the private respondents' monetary claims, with exceptions for claims predating September 1992 (Romano) and November 1992 (Maggay) due to prescription, and awarded attorney's fees and interest. The petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), arguing it never received the complaint or notice of hearing and that Ching was merely a distributor who hired the respondents. The NLRC dismissed the appeal on May 27, 1996, for being filed beyond the ten-day reglementary period from receipt of the decision, which it determined was February 23, 1996. A motion for reconsideration was denied on June 25, 1996. 3. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review of the NLRC's dismissal of its appeal. It contends that its appeal was timely filed on March 8, 1996, as evidenced by the postmark on the envelope, and disputes the NLRC's finding that service of the Labor Arbiter's decision on February 23, 1996, through Ernesto Garma of Atty. Jesus John B. Garma's law office, constituted valid notice to the petitioner. The petitioner argues that Atty. Garma represented Elpidio Ching, not the company, and thus lacked authority to receive the decision on its behalf. The Solicitor General supports the petitioner's stance, while the NLRC maintains that Ching, through his assurance to handle company interests and his engagement of Atty. Garma, acted as the petitioner's authorized representative, making service on Atty. Garma's office effective notice to the petitioner.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal filed by petitioner Associated Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation was perfected within the reglementary period. Whether service of the Labor Arbiter's decision on Ernesto Garma of Atty. Jesus John B. Garma's law office constituted effective notice to the petitioner, and the effect of mailing date on the appeal period.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission dated May 27, 1996, dismissing the appeal of petitioner Associated Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation for having been filed beyond the prescriptive period, as well as its resolution dated June 25, 1996, denying reconsideration, is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the perfection of the appeal: The Court affirmed the NLRC's dismissal of the appeal, holding that it was filed beyond the reglementary period. The crucial issue was the date of receipt of the Labor Arbiter's decision. Petitioner claimed receipt on February 28, 1996, while the NLRC, relying on the Bailiff's Return, found service on February 23, 1996, through Ernesto Garma of Atty. Jesus John B. Garma's law office. The Court found that petitioner's admission constituted a virtual admission that Elpidio Ching was its authorized representative. The appearance of Atty. Garma for Ching was considered an appearance on petitioner's behalf, and the service of the decision on Ernesto Garma of Atty. Garma's law office effectively bound petitioner. Therefore, counting ten (10) days from February 23, 1996, the appeal should have been filed not later than March 4, 1996. Since the notice of appeal was mailed on March 8, 1996, the reglementary period had clearly lapsed. On the effective notice and date of filing: The Court clarified that while the NLRC's finding that the appeal was filed on March 14, 1996, was erroneous, this did not cure the defect of late filing. Applying Section 1, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, the date of mailing is considered the date of filing. Petitioner's Notice with Memorandum on Appeal was mailed on March 8, 1996, which would have made the deadline March 9, 1996. However, this date of mailing was still beyond the reglementary period which commenced on February 23, 1996, and ended on March 4, 1996. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's attempt to dispute the authority of Atty. Garma and Ernesto Garma to receive the decision appeared to be an expedient scheme to avoid payment of its financial liabilities, which the Court would not countenance.
Main Doctrine
The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is crucial for its due course. Service of the Labor Arbiter's decision on the authorized representative of a party, as evidenced by the Bailiff's Return, is considered effective notice to the party itself. The date of mailing, as indicated by the post office stamp on the envelope or registry receipt, is considered the date of filing when an appeal is sent via registered mail, pursuant to the Rules of Court.