G.R. No. 103370 June 17, 1996
UNITED PLACEMENT INTERNATIONAL, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LEONARDO ARAZAS, LIVY DACILLO and CESAR HERNANDEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents Leonardo Arazas, Livy Dacillo, and Cesar Hernandez were recruited by Placementhaus for overseas employment, paying a placement fee and signing contracts. Prior to departure, they were given sealed envelopes containing a notice of employment issued by Luz R. Abad, manager of petitioner United Placement International. Their contracts in Saudi Arabia were pre-terminated after five months. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and refund of placement fees against both agencies before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). Multiple summonses and hearing notices were sent to petitioner’s address of record in Binondo, Manila. Petitioner, through its manager, appeared at least once but later failed to attend hearings. During the pendency of the case, petitioner moved its office to Makati, with the transfer approved by the POEA’s Licensing Department.

FACTS

(Continued)
On July 28, 1988, the POEA rendered a decision ordering petitioner and Placementhaus to pay private respondents monetary awards. A copy was sent via registered mail to petitioner’s Binondo address. Notices were sent on August 4, 11, and 17, 1988, but the mail remained unclaimed and was returned to the POEA on September 17, 1988. Petitioner filed an appeal with the NLRC almost a year later, on September 11, 1989. The NLRC dismissed the appeal for being filed beyond the ten-day reglementary period, ruling the POEA decision had become final and executory. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing it was denied due process as the decision was served at its old address despite its approved transfer, but the motion was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s appeal for having been filed out of time.

RULING

No, the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Service of the POEA decision at petitioner’s address of record in Binondo was valid. Petitioner’s notice of change of address, while acknowledged by the POEA’s Licensing Department, pertained to licensing matters under Book II of the POEA Rules. The adjudicatory complaint was governed by Book VI, and the hearing officer properly relied on the address in the case records. Service by registered mail is deemed completed upon the addressee’s failure to claim the mail within five days from the last notice. Here, the decision was deemed served as of August 9, 1988, starting the ten-day appeal period. Petitioner’s appeal filed nearly a year later was indisputably late. Due process was not violated, as petitioner received multiple hearing notices at its old address and had the opportunity to be heard, which it neglected. The NLRC’s dismissal was legally sound.