G.R. No. 167723 ; November 29, 2006
CLUB FILIPINO, INC., Petitioner, vs. ROMEO ARAULLO, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Romeo Araullo, the Maintenance Supervisor of petitioner Club Filipino, Inc., was found with two brand new faucets in his bag during a routine inspection on September 30, 2000. He claimed ownership, presenting a sales invoice dated September 28, 2000. Following an investigation where he presented evidence but later failed to appear at a subsequent hearing, an Investigating Committee recommended his dismissal for loss of trust and confidence, and he was terminated on December 23, 2000. Araullo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) both dismissed his complaint, upholding the dismissal.
On certiorari, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, declared the dismissal illegal, and ordered reinstatement with full back wages. Petitioner received a copy of this CA Decision on March 3, 2005. It filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court on April 27, 2005, which was beyond the 15-day reglementary period. Respondent argued the petition was filed out of time, presenting postal certifications showing receipt by “Melanie P. Abejero,” a secretary at petitioner’s counsel’s office, on March 3. Petitioner countered that its counsel only secured a copy on April 14, 2005, and submitted an affidavit from Melanie A. Intia (née Abejero) denying receipt and claiming signature discrepancies.

ISSUE

Whether the Petition for Review was filed on time, thereby vesting the Supreme Court with jurisdiction over the case.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for having been filed out of time. The Court ruled that service of the CA Decision upon a clerk at petitioner’s counsel’s law firm on March 3, 2005, was valid and constituted receipt, starting the 15-day period to appeal. The registry return receipt and the certifications from the post office constituted prima facie evidence of the fact and date of receipt. Petitioner’s reliance on the affidavit of its counsel’s secretary, Melanie Intia, to refute this was insufficient. Her self-serving denial, which merely alleged inconsistencies in her signature, could not prevail over the official postal certifications and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the postal service. Consequently, the period to appeal expired on March 18, 2005. The petition filed on April 27, 2005, was therefore belated. The failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period renders the assailed judgment final and executory and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter it. The Court emphasized that procedural rules on reglementary periods are indispensable for the orderly administration of justice and must be strictly followed.