GR 148279; (May, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148279; May 27, 2004
CORPORATE INN HOTEL, ANNIE DEL ROSARIO AND JULIE PALINSAD, petitioners, vs. JENNEVIE H. LIZO, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Jennevie Lizo was hired as a probationary account executive by Corporate Inn Hotel on January 25, 1999. Barely three weeks later, on February 15, 1999, her services were terminated following client complaints and an evaluation revealing her inability to properly deal with guests. Lizo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. On September 30, 1999, the Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, ordering petitioners to pay backwages and separation pay totaling Fifty-One Thousand Pesos (P51,000.00).
Petitioners received the Labor Arbiter’s decision on October 8, 1999. They filed their appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on October 22, 1999, which was four days beyond the mandatory 10-day reglementary period. They also failed to post the required appeal bond. The NLRC dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time. Their motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC and the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petitioners’ appeal for having been perfected beyond the reglementary period.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The perfection of an appeal within the 10-day period prescribed by Article 223 of the Labor Code is jurisdictional and mandatory. This rule is indispensable for the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business and to prevent needless delays. The NLRC Rules, which have the force of law, require the simultaneous filing of a notice of appeal, a memorandum of appeal, and the posting of a cash or surety bond within this period. Non-compliance renders the Labor Arbiter’s decision final and executory.
Petitioners’ plea for substantial justice to excuse their late filing was unavailing. The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is statutory, and one who seeks to avail of it must comply strictly with the rules. The exception allowing a relaxation of procedural rules applies only in highly meritorious cases to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice. The Court found no such compelling circumstance here, as petitioners not only filed late but also failed to post the mandatory appeal bond. Consequently, the decisions of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals were upheld.