GR 162342; (October, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 162342 ; October 11, 2006
JAIME H. BALLAO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jaime H. Ballao, a runner in the cash department of China Banking Corporation (Chinabank), was dismissed after an investigation into a cash discrepancy of P150,000. The bank alleged that the cash custodian gave the amount to Ballao for delivery to a teller, but both employees denied receiving it. Chinabank found Ballao guilty of serious misconduct, fraud, breach of trust, and falsification of records. Ballao filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, ordering reinstatement and backwages. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision on appeal.
Ballao filed a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision. The NLRC denied it for being filed out of time. Ballao then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court dismissed the petition, upholding the NLRC’s finding that the motion for reconsideration was not filed within the ten-day reglementary period and, additionally, lacked verification and proof of service. This ruling rendered the NLRC decision final and executory.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Ballao’s motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision was fatally defective, thereby causing the NLRC decision to become final.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals. On the procedural issue, the Court found that Ballao’s motion for reconsideration was timely filed. Registry receipts and a post office certification proved the motion was sent via registered mail on March 5, 2001, the tenth and final day of the reglementary period from his receipt of the NLRC decision. Furthermore, a registry return receipt showed Chinabank’s counsel received a copy, and the bank filed an opposition, negating its claim of lack of service.
The Court emphasized that the lack of verification is a formal, not a jurisdictional, defect. Rules of procedure are tools to facilitate justice, not to frustrate it. Technicalities must yield when they obstruct substantive rights. The Court, having discretion, could have ordered the correction of the pleading. The appellate court’s strict application, which barred review of the merits, was unwarranted. On the substantive issue of dismissal, the Court found Chinabank failed to prove by substantial evidence that Ballao committed the infractions. The loss was attributable to the bank’s own procedural lapses in cash handling. Consequently, the Labor Arbiter’s decision declaring the dismissal illegal was reinstated.