G.R. No. 125602 . April 29, 1999
ASSOCIATED ANGLO-AMERICAN TOBACCO CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, THIRD DIVISION, LABOR ARBITER RICARDO N. OLAIREZ, RUBEN DE LA CRUZ ROMANO and LUCIO L. MAGGAY, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents Ruben de la Cruz Romano and Lucio L. Maggay filed separate complaints against petitioner Associated Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation for monetary claims before the Regional Arbitration Branch. Petitioner failed to appear at mandatory conferences, leading the Labor Arbiter to consider it to have waived its right to be heard. On February 21, 1996, the Labor Arbiter granted the money claims. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC, which dismissed the appeal for being filed beyond the 10-day reglementary period. The NLRC held that petitioner received the Labor Arbiter’s decision on February 23, 1996, making the appeal due by March 4, 1996, but petitioner filed it only on March 14, 1996.
Petitioner sought reconsideration, arguing it received the decision on February 28, 1996, based on a letter of transmittal and registry return receipt. It also disputed the service of the decision through Ernesto Garma of the law office of Atty. Jesus John B. Garma, asserting that Atty. Garma represented only Elpidio Ching, a former respondent, and not the corporation. The NLRC denied reconsideration, noting petitioner’s admission that it learned about the case through Ching, who assured it of taking necessary actions to protect the company’s interest.

ISSUE

Whether the appeal from the Labor Arbiter’s decision to the NLRC was perfected within the reglementary period.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC resolutions. The Court held that the appeal was filed out of time. Service of the Labor Arbiter’s decision on petitioner was validly effected on February 23, 1996, through Ernesto Garma at the law office of Atty. Jesus John B. Garma. Petitioner’s own admission that it “learned about the instant case through Ching, who assured (it) of taking whatever actions necessary to protect the interest of the company” constituted a virtual acknowledgment that Elpidio Ching was its authorized representative in the proceedings. Consequently, service on Ching’s counsel, Atty. Garma, was service upon petitioner itself under Section 1, Rule III of the NLRC Rules of Procedure, which mandates service on a party’s counsel or authorized representative.
Regarding the date of filing of the appeal, the Court clarified that under Section 1, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, applied suppletorily, the date of mailing is considered the date of filing. The NLRC erred in using the date of receipt (March 14, 1996) instead of the post office stamp date (March 8, 1996). However, even using the mailing date of March 8, 1996, the appeal remained late. The reglementary period expired on March 4, 1996, counting ten calendar days from the valid service on February 23, 1996. Thus, the appeal filed on March 8, 1996, was untimely. The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal.