GR 143527; (December, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143527; December 6, 2006
UNITED FIELD SEA WATCHMAN AND CHECKERS AGENCY, JAIME AMAMIO, GLENN GUIRAL, and PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, petitioners, vs. WILLIE REQUILLO, NORBEM DAHANG, JR., ROMEO BUHANGIN, ANTONIO RUAZA, ELSIE TABLA, and CONSTANTINO DANUCO, respondents.
FACTS
Respondents were security guards employed by petitioner United Field Sea Watchman and Checkers Agency (UFSWCA) and assigned to the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) in Surigao City. Upon discovering that UFSWCA had failed to remit their SSS contributions, respondents filed a complaint with the DOLE, which received media attention. Subsequently, UFSWCA issued an order reassigning respondents to distant PPA offices. Respondents, residing in Surigao City, refused the transfer, viewing it as retaliatory, and continued reporting to their original post. UFSWCA then withheld their June 1997 salaries, treating them as absent without leave, prompting respondents to file a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondents, declaring their dismissal illegal and awarding monetary benefits. Petitioners appealed to the NLRC, which modified the decision by deleting the awards for backwages and damages but ordering reinstatement. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, contending that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion by entertaining an appeal filed beyond the reglementary period.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioners’ appeal to the NLRC was filed out of time, thereby rendering the Labor Arbiter’s decision final and executory.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the appeal period under labor laws. Article 223 of the Labor Code explicitly requires that an appeal from a Labor Arbiter’s decision must be filed within ten calendar days from receipt thereof. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a constitutional right, and must be exercised in strict compliance with procedural law.
The Court upheld the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, which, upon examining the registry return receipts, concluded that the original receipts for petitioners Jaime Amamio and his counsel were not submitted. Applying the presumption under Rule 131, Section 3(e) of the Rules of Evidence that evidence willfully suppressed is adverse if produced, the appellate court correctly inferred that petitioners received the Labor Arbiter’s decision earlier than the date they claimed. Consequently, their appeal was filed late. The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is jurisdictional; failure to do so renders the Labor Arbiter’s decision final and executory. Thus, the NLRC acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the belated appeal and modifying the decision, making its resolution a patent nullity.