Fernandez v. Jose
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Lei Sheryll Fernandez (Fernandez) was hired as a trainee by respondent Botica Claudio, owned by Guadalupe Jose (Jose), on November 14, 2002. She was promoted to sales clerk/pharmacy aide in January 2003 and held the position until her termination on January 15, 2006. Fernandez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging underpayment of wages, overtime pay, holiday pay, non-remittance of SSS contributions, and that her dismissal was based on fabricated charges. Jose denied these allegations, claiming Fernandez was dismissed for going on AWOL and for infractions such as dispensing wrong medicines, allowing credit purchases without consent, and dishonesty. Jose also claimed all employees were paid their benefits and SSS contributions were remitted. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled that while Fernandez's dismissal had just cause (AWOL), it lacked procedural due process. Jose was ordered to pay separation pay and unpaid 13th-month pay. Fernandez appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC reversed the LA's ruling, finding Fernandez illegally dismissed without valid cause and procedural due process, ordering Jose to pay backwages, separation pay, and overtime pay. An Entry of Judgment declared the NLRC Resolution final and executory. Jose filed motions for reconsideration with the NLRC, and subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), claiming she only learned of the NLRC Resolution and LA Order upon personal verification. The CA granted Jose's petition, nullifying the NLRC Resolution and LA Order, and reinstating the LA Decision, finding that Fernandez's appeal was not perfected due to failure to furnish Jose with copies of her appeal documents, thus depriving Jose of due process. The Petition: Fernandez filed a petition for review on certiorari assailing the CA's decision and resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in taking cognizance of Fernandez's appeal despite Jose's pending motion for reconsideration before the NLRC. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in giving due course to Fernandez's appeal despite the alleged failure to furnish Jose with copies of her notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Court reversed and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission and the Order of the Labor Arbiter.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural issue of the CA taking cognizance of Jose's certiorari petition: The Court held that the CA gravely abused its discretion in giving due course to respondent Jose's Rule 65 certiorari petition despite the finding that Jose still had a pending motion for reconsideration from the NLRC's Decision dated March 15, 2010. The filing of a motion for reconsideration from an order, resolution, or decision of the NLRC is an indispensable condition before an aggrieved party can avail of a petition for certiorari. This rule affords the NLRC an opportunity to rectify its perceived errors or mistakes. Therefore, the more prudent recourse for Jose should have been to move for the immediate resolution of his motion for reconsideration before the NLRC instead of filing a petition for certiorari before the CA. Having failed to do so, his petition for certiorari was prematurely filed, and the CA should have dismissed the same. On the substantive issue of the perfection of Fernandez's appeal: The Court found that the CA erred in declaring that Fernandez's failure to furnish Jose with copies of her notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal before the NLRC deprived Jose of her right to due process. While Article 223 of the Labor Code and Section 3(a), Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure require the party intending to appeal to furnish the other party a copy of the memorandum of appeal, the Court has held that the mere failure to serve the same upon the opposing party does not bar the NLRC from giving due course to an appeal. Such failure is treated only as a formal lapse, an excusable neglect, and not a jurisdictional defect warranting dismissal. In this case, the NLRC could not be expected to require compliance from Fernandez since it was not aware that Jose was not notified of her appeal. It relied on Fernandez's representation that she had sent Jose, through her counsel, a copy of her memorandum of appeal by registered mail, as evidenced by a registry receipt. More significantly, Jose eventually participated in the appeal proceedings by filing two motions for reconsideration from the NLRC Resolution, thereby negating any supposed denial of due process. The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard or to seek reconsideration, which Jose was afforded.
Main Doctrine
The mere failure to serve a notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal upon the opposing party is a formal lapse, an excusable neglect, and not a jurisdictional defect that warrants the dismissal of an appeal. The NLRC should require the appellant to provide the opposing party copies of the notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal. Furthermore, the filing of a motion for reconsideration from an order, resolution, or decision of the NLRC is an indispensable condition before an aggrieved party can avail of a petition for certiorari.