GR 148156; (September, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148156 ; September 27, 2004
BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB, (PHILS.), INC., petitioner, vs. ROGELIO T. VILORIA, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Rogelio T. Viloria was a Territory Manager for petitioner Bristol Myers Squibb. In 1997, the petitioner issued memoranda requiring him to explain numerous work infractions, including failure to meet commitments to doctors, discrepancies in visit reports, and failure to submit required documents. Viloria submitted explanations, which the company found unsatisfactory. After his application for a long leave was disapproved, he absented himself. A conference was scheduled, but instead of attending, Viloria tendered a resignation letter effective January 15, 1998. The petitioner, however, terminated his employment on December 24, 1997, for violations of company ethics and falsification.
Viloria filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint, finding the dismissal valid and for just cause. Viloria received the decision on May 26, 1999, giving him until June 5, 1999, to appeal. He filed a “Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Memorandum” on June 8, 1999, and his actual Memorandum of Appeal on June 9, 1999, both beyond the reglementary period. The NLRC dismissed his appeal for being filed out of time.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to Viloria’s belated appeal from the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the NLRC’s dismissal of the appeal. The perfection of an appeal within the statutory period is mandatory and jurisdictional. The Labor Code provides a 10-calendar day period from receipt of the Labor Arbiter’s decision to file an appeal. Viloria received the decision on May 26, 1999, making his deadline June 5, 1999. His filing on June 9, 1999, was indisputably late.
The Court rejected the appellate court’s justification for relaxing the rules. The circumstances did not warrant liberality. Viloria’s filing of a “Motion for Extension” was a prohibited pleading under the NLRC Rules. His counsel’s claim of heavy workload was unsubstantiated and not a compelling reason. Furthermore, the merits of the case did not call for relaxation, as the Labor Arbiter’s decision, which found the dismissal was for just cause and with due process, was supported by substantial evidence. The right to appeal is not a natural right but statutory, and failure to comply with the period renders the decision final and executory.