G.R. No. 112120 November 23, 1995
SOUTH VILLA CHINESE RESTAURANT & CITY FOODS CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NORBERTO DE LARA, DESIDERIO R. TURDA, JR. and ALYANSANG LIKHA NG MGA ANAK NG BAYAN (ALAB), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner South Villa Chinese Restaurant received an adverse Labor Arbiter decision on February 14, 1991, making February 24, 1991, a Sunday, the last day to appeal. The NLRC dismissed the appeal as filed late, noting its Docket Section stamp showed receipt on February 28, 1991. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, asserting it filed by registered mail on February 25, 1991. It submitted registry return cards postmarked February 25, 1991, addressed to the NLRC Docket Section and the adverse counsel, received on February 27 and 28, respectively. The Solicitor General supported petitioner, noting a registry receipt dated February 25, 1991, for mailing to opposing counsel was part of the records. The NLRC maintained the appeal was filed personally on February 28, arguing that under procedural rules, only the post office stamp on the envelope or registry receipt proves filing date, and registry return cards are not proof.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal for having been filed out of time.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the NLRC resolutions. The legal logic centers on the evaluation of evidence to determine the actual filing date and the application of equity. While the NLRC correctly cited the rule that the date of the post office stamp on the envelope or registry receipt is considered the date of filing, the totality of evidence indicated timely filing. The registry receipt (No. 63553) attached to petitioner’s manifestation, dated February 25, 1991, proved mailing a copy to adverse counsel on that date. The corresponding registry return card bore the same postmark. It was reasonable to conclude the original sent to the NLRC was mailed simultaneously, as it is illogical to mail a copy to counsel first and file the original days later. Corroborating this were the appeal fee paid by postal money order on February 25, the surety bond dated February 22, and the appeal memorandum itself subscribed on February 25. The absence of the mailing envelope in the NLRC records likely indicated misplacement. The Court emphasized that strict procedural adherence must yield to equity and substantial justice where evidence demonstrates the appeal was filed within the reglementary period. Thus, the NLRC’s dismissal, based solely on its docket stamp and a rigid rejection of corroborative evidence, constituted grave abuse of discretion.