G.R. No. 71177




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 71177 February 29, 1988 ERECTORS, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND DANILO CRIS, respondents. SARMIENTO, J.: This case should not have reached this Tribunal. It should have, in fact, been terminated three years ago but for the petitioner's counsels who had the temerity to cite a non-existent law with the obvious intention of delaying the proceedings if not outrightly evading financial responsibility under the law. This actuation, indeed, is flagrant dishonesty. We cannot let it pass. But before we proceed, a recital of the background of the controversy is in order. The private respondent, Danilo Cris, a contract worker as Earthworks Engineer in Taif, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, filed the case with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) on February 27, 1984 for the illegal termination of his contract of employment with the petitioner herein, Erectors, Inc. The petitioner, as a defense, contended that the private respondent was estopped from questioning the legality of his termination as he already voluntarily and freely received his termination pay. The POEA, on September 27,1984, rendered a decision adverse to petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered ordering the respondents ERECTORS, INC. and SOCIETE AUXILLAIRE D'ENTERPRISES (S.A.E.) jointly and severally, to pay the complainant, DANILO CRIS the sum of SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY SIX DOLLARS AND SIXTY SIX CENTS ($ 7,166.6), or its equivalent in Philippine Currency at the time of actual payment, representing the unpaid salaries for the unexpired term of complainant's contract. 1 The decision was received by the petitioner on October 25, 1984. Fifteen days later, or on November 9 of the same year, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The motion which was treated as an appeal was dismissed by the NLRC "for having been filed out of time." 2 The petitioner, through counsel, alleged that the respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case and affirmed that the motion for reconsideration or appeal was seasonably filed explaining thus: xxx xxx xxx While it is true that between 25 October 1984 (date of receipt of the POEA decision) and 09 November 1984 (actual date of filing of petitioner's motion for reconsideration), there were actually fifteen (15) calendar days, however, it can not be disputed that within said period there were only ten (10) working days, and five (5) non-working or legal holidays, which were as follows: October 26, 1984--Saturday October 27,1984--Sunday November 1, 1984--All Saint's Day November 3, 1984--Saturday November 4,198--Sunday 3 xxx xxx xxx In support of its contention, the petitioner cited two provisions allegedly of the 1984 POEA rules and procedures, specifying Rule XXIV, sec. 1, and Rule XXV, sec. 2, thereof, which purportedly provide: Rule XXV xxx xxx xxx Section 2. Finality of Decision, Order or Award — all decisions, orders or award shall become final after the lapse of ten (10) working days from receipt of a copy thereof by the parties and no appeal has been perfected within same period. RULE XXIV Section 1. Motion for Reconsideration. — The aggrieved party may within ten (10) working days from receipt of the decision, order or resolution of the Administration, may file for a motion for reconsideration; otherwise, the decision shall be final and executory (Emphasis supplied) 4 These cited rules do not exist. Nowhere in any law or rules relative to the POEA may the above provisions be found. The POEA was created only on May 1, 1982 by virtue of Executive Order No. 797. Pursuant to the said Executive Order, the then Minister of Labor, Blas F. Ople promulgated on September 5, 1983 the POEA Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment which took effect on January 1, 1984. These 1984 Rules were superseded on May 21, 1985 by the POEA Rules & Regulations. For the reason that the petitioner's appeal with the NLRC was filed on November 9,1984, the 1984 Rules should govern. And this was precisely what the petitioner insisted upon — the POEA rules obtaining in 1984 must be applied. 5 Yet therein, it is clear that the period for perfecting an appeal or a Motion for Reconsideration is ten (10) calendar days. The pertinent rule on the matter is found in Book VII, Rule 5, of the 1984 Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment (POEA/MOLE) to wit: Section 1. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR APPEAL. The aggrieved party may, within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the decision, order or resolution file a motion for reconsideration which shall specify in detail the particular errors and objections, otherwise the decision shall be final and executory. Such motion for reconsideration shall be treated as an appeal as provided in this Rule otherwise the same shall not be entertained. The above rule is expressed in a language so simple and precise that there is no necessity to interpret it. Moreover, as early as 1982, this Court, in the landmark case of Vir-Jen Shipping & Marine Services, Inc. vs. NLRC6 construed the ten (10) day period for filing of appeals7 from decisions of Labor Arbiters or compulsory arbitrators as ten (10) calendar days, as well as the raison d' etre for the shorter period, thus: xxx xxx xxx ...if only because We believe that it is precisely in the interest of labor that the law has commanded that labor cases be promptly, if not peremptorily, disposed of. Long periods for any acts to be done by the contending parties can be taken advantage of more by management than by labor. Most labor claims are decided in their favor and management is generally the appellant. Delay, in most instances, gives the employers more opportunity not only to prepare even ingenious defense, what with well-paid talented lawyers they can afford, but even to wear out the efforts and meager resources of the workers, to the point that not infrequently the latter either give up or compromise for less than what is due them. xxx xxx xxx The POEA rule applicable in this case is precisely in consonance with the above ruling in that it expressed in no uncertain terms that the period for appeal is ten (10) calendar days. For "not even the Secretary of Labor has the power to amend or alter in any material sense whatever the law itself unequivocably specifies or fixes." 8 There is, thus, no doubt that the law mandates that the period for filing a motion for reconsideration or appeal with the NLRC is ten (10) calendar days and not ten (10) working days. It is, therefore, obvious that the counsels for the petitioner deliberately tried to mislead this Court if only to suit their client's ends. On this regard, said counsels have much explaining to do. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed Resolution of the public respondent, dated December 28, 1984, AFFIRMED. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by this Court on July 10, 1985 is hereby LIFTED. The counsels for the petitioner are also admonished for foisting a non-existent rule with the warning that repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. With triple costs against the petitioner. This Decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY. SO ORDERED. Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Paras and Padilla, JJ., concur. Footnotes 1 Rendered by POEA Administrator Patricia A. Sto. Tomas. 2 Penned by Ricardo C. Castro and concurred in by Cecilio T. Sero and Federico O. Borromeo. 3 Rollo, 4. 4 Rollo, 4. 5 In a resolutions dated October 20 and December 16, 1987, we ordered the petitioner to furnish us with the source of the rules appearing on page 3 of the petition. The petitioner, in compliance with the resolution manifested that the source of the said rules is the 1984 Rules and Procedures of the POEA but did not bother to submit a copy thereof to this Court. 6 No. L-58011-12, July 20,1982,115 SCRA 347. 7 Art. 223 of the Labor Code. 8 Id. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation