G.R. No. 165284 ; April 16, 2008
MP ACEBEDO OPTICAL SHOPS/ACEBEDO OPTICAL CO., INC., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and RODRIGO C. SANTIAGO, respondents.

FACTS

Rodrigo C. Santiago was hired as an accountant and later appointed Chief Accountant for the Acebedo Group of Companies. In April 1997, after taking a five-day leave, he requested a two-day extension. The Human Resources Department informed him the extension was unnecessary as the company had already decided to dismiss him effective April 9, 1997, allegedly due to loss of trust and confidence over performance shortcomings and unauthorized actions. Santiago filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, ordering reinstatement with full backwages. Petitioners appealed this decision to the NLRC.
The NLRC dismissed the appeal for being filed late. Records showed petitioners’ former counsel received the Labor Arbiter’s decision on July 20, 1998. The appeal, however, was filed only on June 17, 1999, far beyond the ten-day reglementary period. Petitioners contended before the Court of Appeals via certiorari that their counsel did not receive the decision and they only learned of it upon service of a writ of execution. The CA dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the NLRC’s dismissal of petitioners’ appeal for being filed out of time.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The right to appeal is statutory and must comply with prescribed rules. The NLRC Rules, which have the force of law, mandate that an appeal from a Labor Arbiter’s decision must be perfected within ten calendar days from receipt. Failure to do so renders the decision final and executory.
The Court found petitioners’ claim of non-receipt unsubstantiated. The NLRC and CA records conclusively established that petitioners’ former counsel received the decision on July 20, 1998. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty—that the decision was properly delivered—stands, as petitioners presented no evidence to rebut it. Thus, the reglementary period to appeal expired on July 30, 1998. The appeal filed in June 1999 was indisputably late.
While the Court may liberally apply procedural rules to prevent grave injustice, such exception does not apply here. Petitioners failed to demonstrate a highly meritorious case warranting leniency. Their failure to seasonably perfect their appeal rendered the Labor Arbiter’s decision final. Consequently, the Court declined to review the substantive merits of the illegal dismissal ruling, as the procedural lapse was fatal. The dismissal of the appeal for tardiness was proper.