G.R. No. 120062 ; June 8, 2000
Workers of Antique Electric Cooperative, Inc., represented by Eduardo Nietes, petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Antique Electric Cooperative, Inc., respondents.

FACTS

The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) found Antique Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ANTECO) liable for wage underpayments and unpaid 13th-month pay from 1984 to 1987, totaling P1,427,412.75. An order for payment was issued in 1989. Subsequently, 108 ANTECO workers signed a waiver in December 1989, agreeing to accept a settlement of P500,000 (35%) and forfeiting the balance. The DOLE approved this waiver in June 1990. Years later, in December 1992, a group of workers, represented by Eduardo Nietes, filed a position paper with the NLRC seeking to nullify the waiver and collect the unpaid 65% balance, alleging the waiver was executed under coercion and undue influence.
The NLRC dismissed the case in October 1993 for failure to file formal complaints after being directed to do so. Nietes filed an appeal. The NLRC dismissed this appeal on February 7, 1994, for being filed nine days late, calculating that the appeal period expired on November 15, 1993, but the appeal was filed personally only on November 22, 1993. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming they had mailed the appeal earlier, on November 11, 1992 (a date which appears to be a typographical error for 1993). The NLRC denied this, noting official receipts showed fees were paid on November 22, 1993, supporting the finding of personal filing on that late date.

ISSUE

Did the National Labor Relations Commission commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal for being filed out of time?

RULING

No, the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that in a certiorari proceeding under Rule 65, the petitioner must prove that the tribunal acted in a capricious, whimsical, or despotic manner equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The NLRC’s finding that the appeal was filed personally on November 22, 1993, beyond the ten-day reglementary period under Article 223 of the Labor Code, is a factual conclusion supported by evidence, specifically the official receipts for appeal fees paid on that date. The perfection of an appeal within the statutory period is mandatory and jurisdictional; failure to comply renders the assailed order final and executory.
The Court found no arbitrariness in the NLRC’s adherence to this procedural rule. Furthermore, the Court noted ancillary issues undermining the petition: the representative capacity of Eduardo Nietes was questionable as the real parties in interest were not clearly named in the position paper, and the allegations impugning the validity of the DOLE-approved waiver were unsubstantiated. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty stands. Thus, the NLRC’s dismissal of the appeal on a technical, yet jurisdictional, ground was proper.