NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc. v. Dabu
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Gener G. Dabu was hired by petitioner NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc., as an oiler. During his pre-employment medical examination, he disclosed a pre-existing condition of diabetes mellitus type 2. Shortly after embarking on his voyage, he experienced symptoms consistent with poorly controlled diabetes and was declared unfit for sea duty. Upon repatriation, company-designated physicians continued his treatment but ultimately declared his diabetes not work-related. Despite this, Dabu consulted independent physicians who opined that his condition was work-aggravated or work-related and rendered him permanently unfit for sea duty. Dabu sought disability benefits, which were denied, leading to arbitration proceedings. Procedural History: The National Conciliation and Mediation Board-Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (NCMB-PVA) ruled in favor of Dabu, ordering NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc. to pay disability compensation and attorney's fees. NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc. appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Initially, the CA granted the petition, reversing the PVA's decision. However, upon Dabu's motion for reconsideration, the CA issued an Amended Decision, recalling its initial ruling and dismissing NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc.'s appeal on the ground that it was filed out of time. The CA subsequently denied NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc.'s motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner NYK-Fil Ship Management, Inc. filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's Amended Decision and Resolution. The core of the petition argues that the CA committed a serious and reversible error in dismissing their appeal for being filed out of time. Petitioner contends that at the time of filing, the prevailing jurisprudence allowed a 15-day period to appeal a Voluntary Arbitrator's decision, and they had no knowledge of the subsequent ruling that strictly enforced a 10-day period derived from the Labor Code, which they argue is a substantive right that overrides the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review filed by petitioner on the ground that it was filed out of time because the 10-day period provided under Article 262-A of the Labor Code for appealing a Voluntary Arbitrator's decision to the Court of Appeals prevails over the 15-day period provided under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court; and whether the ruling in Philippine Electric Corporation (PHILEC) v. Court of Appeals should apply to the petitioner's case. Whether the Voluntary Arbitrator's decision had lapsed into finality, precluding the Court of Appeals from exercising appellate jurisdiction.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Amended Decision dated March 3, 2016, and the Resolution dated June 9, 2016, of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 139266 are affirmed. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for being filed out of time.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the reglementary period to appeal a Voluntary Arbitrator's decision and the applicability of PHILEC: The Court reiterated that Article 262-A of the Labor Code provides that the award or decision of a Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators shall be final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the copy of the award or decision by the parties. This statutory period must be strictly complied with, as it is jurisdictional. While Rule 43, Section 4 of the Rules of Court provides a 15-day period to appeal to the CA, this rule cannot diminish or modify the substantive right provided by the Labor Code. In cases of conflict between a statute and the Rules of Court, the statute prevails. Therefore, the appeal of a Voluntary Arbitrator's decision to the CA must be filed within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the decision. The Court found no merit in petitioner's contention that the PHILEC case, decided on December 10, 2014, should not apply because its petition was filed on February 24, 2015, and it had no opportunity to know of the new prescriptive period. The Court emphasized that the 10-day period is provided in the Labor Code itself, and the PHILEC decision merely applied existing law. Furthermore, the Court noted that a similar ruling affirming the 10-day period was already made in the 2005 case of Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., Sales Force Union -PTGWO-Balais v. Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. The petitioner failed to present proof that the PHILEC decision had not yet been published or disseminated by the time it filed its appeal. Thus, the PHILEC decision, being the most recent pronouncement on the matter and consistent with prior jurisprudence, applies to the instant case. On the finality of the Voluntary Arbitrator's decision: Since the petitioner filed its petition for review with the CA 15 days after receiving the PVA decision, which was beyond the 10-day reglementary period, the PVA decision had already lapsed into finality. Consequently, the CA correctly dismissed the petition for review as it had no appellate jurisdiction to act on an appeal filed beyond the period prescribed by law. A final and executory judgment becomes immutable and unalterable, and any amendment or alteration made to it would be null and void for lack of jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
A Voluntary Arbitrator's award or decision must be appealed before the Court of Appeals within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the award or decision, as provided in Article 262-A of the Labor Code. Failure to perfect an appeal within this period results in the decision becoming final and executory, depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction.