G.R. No. 168612, December 10, 2014
PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC CORPORATION (PHILEC), Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION BOARD (NCMB), Department of Labor and Employment, RAMON T. JIMENEZ, in his capacity as Voluntary Arbitrator, PHILEC WORKERS’ UNION (PWU), ELEODORO V. LIPIO, and EMERLITO C. IGNACIO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Philippine Electric Corporation (PHILEC) is a domestic corporation engaged in manufacturing and repairing high voltage transformers. Respondents Eleodoro V. Lipio and Emerlito C. Ignacio, Sr. were rank-and-file employees and members of the respondent union, PHILEC Workers’ Union (PWU). On August 18 and 21, 1997, respectively, PHILEC selected Lipio (from Machinist, Pay Grade VIII) and Ignacio, Sr. (from DT-Assembler, Pay Grade VII) for promotion to Foreman I (Pay Grade B under a “Modified SGV” scale) and issued memoranda outlining a graduated training allowance for a four-month observation period. On September 17, 1997, PHILEC and PWU entered into a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), effective retroactively from June 1, 1997. Article X, Section 4 of this CBA provided a new schedule of step increases for promotions, and Article IX, Section 1(f) detailed the computation of training allowances based on these step increases. PWU filed a grievance, claiming the training allowances paid to Lipio and Ignacio, Sr. did not conform to the new CBA’s step increase schedule. The dispute was submitted to voluntary arbitration before respondent Ramon T. Jimenez. PHILEC argued it applied the “Modified SGV” pay grade scale, allegedly agreed upon with the union during negotiations to address wage structure overlaps, as the promotions occurred before the new CBA was signed. The Voluntary Arbitrator ruled in favor of the employees and the union, finding a CBA violation and ordering payment of wage differentials. PHILEC’s petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals was dismissed for being filed out of time. The Court of Appeals found that PHILEC received the Voluntary Arbitrator’s decision on August 23, 1999, but filed its petition only on September 13, 1999, which was beyond the 10-day reglementary period.

ISSUE

The primary issue resolved by the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed PHILEC’s petition for certiorari for having been filed out of time.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that an appeal from a voluntary arbitrator’s decision is governed by Rule 43 of the Rules of Court and must be filed with the Court of Appeals within 10 calendar days from receipt of the award or decision. The Court found that PHILEC received the Voluntary Arbitrator’s decision on August 23, 1999. Counting 10 calendar days from August 24, 1999, the last day to file was September 2, 1999. PHILEC filed its petition only on September 13, 1999. Therefore, the petition was filed 11 days late. The Court rejected PHILEC’s argument that the 10-day period should be counted from its counsel’s receipt of the decision on August 30, 1999, as service to a corporation is completed upon receipt by any of its officers or agents. Since the decision was received by a personnel officer at PHILEC’s business address on August 23, 1999, this constituted valid service. The reglementary period for filing the appeal had already lapsed, rendering the Voluntary Arbitrator’s decision final and executory. Consequently, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of finality of judgments and the mandatory nature of procedural rules.