G.R. No. 152336 ; June 09, 2005
MTM GARMENT MFG., INC. and ROBERTO FLORES, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Labor Arbiter ARTHUR L. AMANSEC, Labor Arbiter GODOFREDO V. SEÑIRES, JR., and ANGELITA PASTRANA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, employees of MTM Garment Mfg., Inc., filed a complaint for monetary claims. They later amended it to include illegal dismissal after being laid off when the company relocated. Labor Arbiter Arthur L. Amansec ruled in favor of the employees, declaring their dismissal illegal and awarding backwages and separation pay. A copy of this decision was received by petitioners’ counsel, Atty. Julio F. Andres, on February 10, 1999. Petitioners failed to appeal within the reglementary period, rendering the decision final and executory.
Subsequently, a writ of execution was issued. Petitioner Roberto Flores filed a Motion to Quash the Alias Writ of Execution, arguing he was deprived of his right to appeal because he never personally received the decision at his correct address. He also contended the writ lacked a computation of the award. The Labor Arbiter denied the motion, noting service to counsel of record was complete and binding. Petitioners then filed a Motion for Annulment of Judgment with the NLRC, which was denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s resolutions.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of petitioners’ Motion for Annulment of Judgment and in upholding the finality of the Labor Arbiter’s decision despite claims of defective service.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed resolutions. The legal logic is anchored on the rules of procedure concerning service and perfection of appeal. Service of the Labor Arbiter’s decision upon petitioners’ counsel of record, Atty. Julio F. Andres, on February 10, 1999, was valid and binding upon the petitioners. Under the NLRC Rules of Procedure, the period for appeal is counted from the counsel’s receipt. The petitioners’ failure to appeal within ten days from such receipt made the decision final and executory.
The Court rejected the argument of improper service to petitioner Flores personally. Service by registered mail to a party is deemed complete upon receipt by the addressee or agent. If unclaimed after notice, service takes effect by operation of law. Flores’s failure to claim the mail or update his address with the tribunal was his own fault and did not invalidate the service to his counsel. Furthermore, the subsequent Order furnishing the computation of awards was also received by counsel, and petitioners’ inaction waived any objection. The Motion for Annulment of Judgment was a belated attempt to circumvent the finality of a judgment rendered by a tribunal with proper jurisdiction, not a case of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. Thus, no grave abuse of discretion attended the appellate court’s affirmance.