G.R. No. 108278 . January 2, 1997.
NIACONSULT, INC., JOSE DEL ROSARIO, WILFREDO S. TIANGCO, and CESAR DE GUZMAN, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and JESUS C. OCAMPO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner NIAConsult, Inc. abolished the position of private respondent Jesus C. Ocampo, leading him to file an illegal dismissal complaint. The Labor Arbiter ruled in Ocampo’s favor on February 15, 1991, ordering his reinstatement with backwages and damages. Petitioners appealed to the NLRC on March 11, 1991, alleging their counsel received the decision on March 4, 1991.
Private respondent moved to dismiss the appeal, presenting a postal certification showing the decision was delivered to and received at the NIA Records Section, the official address of petitioners’ counsel, on February 25, 1991. Petitioners’ counsel, Atty. Musa Maglayang, submitted an affidavit stating he was on official field work and leave from February 24-28 and only personally received and signed for the mail on March 4, 1991. He explained NIA’s internal mail procedure, where the Records Section receives mail without signing return cards, which are only signed later by the addressee upon personal delivery.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC correctly dismissed petitioners’ appeal for having been filed beyond the reglementary period.

RULING

Yes, the NLRC correctly dismissed the appeal. The perfection of an appeal within the statutory period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Service by registered mail is deemed complete upon actual receipt by the addressee or, if unclaimed, after five days from the first notice of the postmaster. The Court rejected petitioners’ argument that receipt should be counted from March 1 or 4, 1991, when their counsel personally signed the return card. The official address of record was the NIA Building, and delivery to the NIA Records Section on February 25, 1991, constituted valid service upon petitioners’ counsel.
The legal logic is that the date of receipt cannot be made dependent on an internal office procedure or the addressee’s personal convenience, as this would undermine the certainty and purpose of procedural rules on service. Parties and their counsel bear the responsibility of establishing a reliable system for receiving court processes at their address of record. Since the decision was received at that address on February 25, 1991, the ten-day appeal period expired on March 7, 1991. The appeal filed on March 11, 1991, was therefore late, rendering the Labor Arbiter’s decision final and executory. The NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal.