United Field Sea Watchman v. Requillo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondents, employed as security guards by petitioner United Field Sea Watchman and Checkers Agency (UFSWCA), a single proprietorship owned by Jaime Amamio and managed by Glenn Guiral, were assigned to the Port of Surigao City, operated by the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA). The respondents discovered that UFSWCA had failed to remit their Social Security System (SSS) contributions, despite regular deductions from their salaries. In response to their complaints filed with the Department of Labor and Employment, UFSWCA issued an order reassigning them to various locations outside Surigao City. The respondents refused this reassignment, viewing it as retaliation, and continued reporting for duty in Surigao City, leading to UFSWCA's refusal to pay their salaries for June 1997. 2. Procedural History: The respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, and nonpayment of wages with the Labor Arbitration Branch. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of most respondents, declaring their dismissal illegal and ordering UFSWCA and PPA to pay various monetary awards. Upon appeal by UFSWCA, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the decision, deleting awards for backwages, damages, and attorney's fees, and ordering reinstatement without backwages. The respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion by giving due course to UFSWCA's appeal, which they contended was filed beyond the reglementary period. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, setting aside the NLRC's resolution. 3. The Petition: Petitioners, UFSWCA, Jaime Amamio, Glenn Guiral, and the Philippine Ports Authority, seek review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. They challenge the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution, which held that their appeal to the NLRC was filed out of time. The core of the petitioners' argument, as presented to the Supreme Court, is that the Court of Appeals erred in its determination of the timeliness of their appeal to the NLRC, which they believe was perfected within the statutory period. The Supreme Court's resolution focuses on whether the Court of Appeals correctly found that the appeal was not filed within the ten-day period prescribed by Article 223 of the Labor Code, considering the evidence regarding the receipt of the Labor Arbiter's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioners' appeal to the NLRC was filed beyond the reglementary period. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it gave due course to petitioners' appeal.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 54449 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the timeliness of the appeal to the NLRC: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that the petitioners' appeal to the NLRC was filed beyond the reglementary period. The Court of Appeals meticulously examined the registry return slips and found substantial evidence indicating that the slips addressed to Jaime Amamio and his counsel were not the original ones. The patent irregularity, including the absence of required stamps and prints, led the Court of Appeals to conclude that these were not the authentic return slips. Rule 131, Section 3(e) of the Revised Rules of Evidence presumes that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. In the absence of contradictory evidence, this presumption stands. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly inferred that the decision was received by Amamio and his counsel on a date much earlier than April 27, 1998. Consequently, the appeal filed before the NLRC was not within the ten (10) day period to appeal as mandated by Article 223 of the Labor Code. On the issue of the NLRC's jurisdiction: The failure to perfect the appeal in accordance with the prescribed procedure renders the same ineffective to stop the running of the reglementary period. The NLRC, therefore, had no jurisdiction to give due course to the appeal, and its resolution modifying the Labor Arbiter's decision was a patent nullity for want of jurisdiction. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in the manner and within the period prescribed by law.
Main Doctrine
The perfection of an appeal within the statutory reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. Failure to perfect an appeal seasonably renders the decision final and executory, divesting the appellate body of jurisdiction to give due course to the appeal.