GR 130104; (January, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 130104. January 31, 2000
ELIZABETH SUBLAY, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, EURO-SWISS FOOD INC., WERDENBERG INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and WERNER BERGER, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Elizabeth Sublay was employed as Chief Accountant by Euro-Swiss Food Inc. until her termination on December 31, 1994, due to the alleged abolition of her position resulting from company computerization and reduced operations after a factory fire. She filed a case for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled her dismissal was justified due to redundancy and installation of labor-saving devices, ordering only the payment of separation pay. The Labor Arbiter’s decision was received by her counsel of record, Atty. Gabriel Marquez, on November 21, 1996.
Petitioner, through a collaborating counsel, Atty. Raymond Paolo Alikpala, filed an appeal with the NLRC on December 9, 1996. The NLRC dismissed the appeal for being filed seven days beyond the ten-day reglementary period, which lapsed on December 1, 1996. Petitioner argued the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by strictly applying procedural rules, contending that her collaborating counsel, who was actively handling the case, was not furnished a copy of the decision despite a request for courtesy copies.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s appeal for being filed out of time.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is both mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to comply renders the decision final and executory. The Court found no sufficient justification to relax this rule. The collaborating counsel, Atty. Alikpala, had a duty to monitor the case’s progress and anticipate the release of the decision, especially knowing the lead counsel was no longer active. His reliance on the court to furnish him a copy, despite not being the counsel of record, was not excusable negligence. The procedural lapse was attributable to petitioner’s counsel, and she was not deprived of proper representation. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are not mere technicalities and must be followed to ensure orderly administration of justice. The petition was dismissed.