Posted by: Anonymous
FACTS:
Private respondents were employed as security guards by DNL Security Agency and were assigned at GSIS Tacloban purusant to a contract between DNL and GSIS. In FEbruary 1991, DNL informed the security guards that its contract with GSIS was already terminated but instructed them to continue working until April 20, 1993, which they did, after which they were terminated from work.
They thus filed a complaint with the NLRC-RAB a complaint for illegal dismissal against DNL and GSIS. The RAB however dismissed their complaint after finding that they were not illegally terminated because their employment was dependent upon the service contract between DNL and GSIS.
They appealed to the NLRC. The latter however dismissed their appeal for having been filed beyond the reglementary period. They appealed further to the CA, but the latter affirmed the decision of the NLRC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in not relaxing the rules and thus sacrified substantial justice in the altar of dubious technicalities.
HELD:
We partly grant the petition.
The resolution of the petition before us involves the appreciation and determination of factual matters, mainly on the issue of whether petitioners appeal was seasonably filed before the NLRC.
Timeliness of an appeal is a factual issue. It requires a review or evaluation of the evidence which would show when the appeal was actually mailed to and received by the NLRC. In this case, to prove that it mailed the notice of appeal and appeal memorandum on October 27, 1997, instead of October 28, 1997, as shown by the stamped date on the envelope, petitioner presented Registry Receipt No. 34581 bearing the earlier date.
Under Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, where the filing of pleadings, appearances, motions, notices, orders, judgments, and all other papers with the court/tribunal is made by registered mail, the date of mailing, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of filing.
Thus, the date of filing is determinable from two sources: from the post office stamp on the envelope or from the registry receipt, either of which may suffice to prove the timeliness of the filing of the pleadings. If the date stamped on one is earlier than the other, the former may be accepted as the date of filing. This presupposes, however, that the envelope or registry receipt and the dates appearing thereon are duly authenticated before the tribunal where they are presented.
In any case, even if the appeal was filed one day late, the same should have been entertained by the NLRC. Indeed, the appeal must be perfected within the statutory or reglementary period. This is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional. Failure to perfect the appeal on time renders the assailed decision final and executory and deprives the appellate court or body of the legal authority to alter the final judgment, much less entertain the appeal. However, this Court has, time and again, ruled that, in exceptional cases, a belated appeal may be given due course if greater injustice will be visited upon the party should the appeal be denied. The Court has allowed this extraordinary measure even at the expense of sacrificing order and efficiency if only to serve the greater principles of substantial justice and equity.
Technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties. We have consistently held that technical rules are not binding in labor cases and are not to be applied strictly if the result would be detrimental to the working man.
We partly grant the petition.
The resolution of the petition before us involves the appreciation and determination of factual matters, mainly on the issue of whether petitioners appeal was seasonably filed before the NLRC.
Timeliness of an appeal is a factual issue. It requires a review or evaluation of the evidence which would show when the appeal was actually mailed to and received by the NLRC. In this case, to prove that it mailed the notice of appeal and appeal memorandum on October 27, 1997, instead of October 28, 1997, as shown by the stamped date on the envelope, petitioner presented Registry Receipt No. 34581 bearing the earlier date.
Under Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, where the filing of pleadings, appearances, motions, notices, orders, judgments, and all other papers with the court/tribunal is made by registered mail, the date of mailing, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of filing.
Thus, the date of filing is determinable from two sources: from the post office stamp on the envelope or from the registry receipt, either of which may suffice to prove the timeliness of the filing of the pleadings. If the date stamped on one is earlier than the other, the former may be accepted as the date of filing. This presupposes, however, that the envelope or registry receipt and the dates appearing thereon are duly authenticated before the tribunal where they are presented.
In any case, even if the appeal was filed one day late, the same should have been entertained by the NLRC. Indeed, the appeal must be perfected within the statutory or reglementary period. This is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional. Failure to perfect the appeal on time renders the assailed decision final and executory and deprives the appellate court or body of the legal authority to alter the final judgment, much less entertain the appeal. However, this Court has, time and again, ruled that, in exceptional cases, a belated appeal may be given due course if greater injustice will be visited upon the party should the appeal be denied. The Court has allowed this extraordinary measure even at the expense of sacrificing order and efficiency if only to serve the greater principles of substantial justice and equity.
Technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties. We have consistently held that technical rules are not binding in labor cases and are not to be applied strictly if the result would be detrimental to the working man.
