GR 91757; (June, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 91757 June 9, 1992
NUEVA ECIJA III ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HON. THIRD DIVISION, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. CRESENCIO RAMOS (In his capacity as Labor Arbiter, Regional Office No. III), JOSE C. CRUZ (In his capacity as sheriff of Regional Office No. 3, Department of Labor & Employment), CENTRAL LUZON LABOR CONGRESS-LCP, CENON DIAZ, CELESTINO BAGSIC, SATURNINO BINUYA and FLORIDA MANUBAY, respondents.
FACTS
A complaint for illegal dismissal and damages was filed by the Central Luzon Labor Congress on behalf of its members, Cenon Diaz, Celestino Bagsic, Saturnino Binuya, and Florida Manubay, against Nueva Ecija III Electric Cooperative Inc. (NEECO) and its President. The dismissals stemmed from charges against Binuya and Manubay for illegal encashment of a NEECO fire loss claim check, and against Diaz and Bagsic for illegal withdrawal of wires. The respondents claimed their actions were upon orders of the General Manager and for the cooperative’s benefit. An Investigation Committee found them guilty and recommended termination, leading to their dismissal on April 14, 1987. The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment on June 30, 1988, declaring the dismissal illegal, ordering reinstatement, and awarding backwages, allowances, and damages totaling P204,880. NEECO appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC dismissed the appeal for tardiness, finding that the Labor Arbiter’s decision was received by NEECO on July 1, 1988, but the appeal was filed only on July 16, 1988, and the appeal fee was paid on July 20, 1988, beyond the ten-day period. The NLRC subsequently ordered the release of the monetary award. NEECO filed this petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.
ISSUE
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission gravely abused its discretion in dismissing NEECO’s appeal for being filed out of time.
RULING
Yes, the NLRC gravely abused its discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari. The records showed that petitioner received the Labor Arbiter’s decision on July 1, 1988, and filed its appeal on July 11, 1988—the tenth day of the appeal period. The NLRC’s finding that it was mailed on July 16, 1988 was due to conflicting dates on the envelope. A certification from the Postmaster established that the envelope was mailed on July 11, 1988. Applying the rule that the date of mailing is considered the date of filing, the appeal was timely. Furthermore, delay in paying the appeal fee was not a ground for dismissal of the appeal, as there was no provision requiring such payment to perfect the appeal. The NLRC was ordered to give due course to petitioner’s appeal and resolve it on the merits.