GR 226002; (June, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 226002. June 25, 2018.
Lino A. Fernandez, Jr., Petitioner, vs. Manila Electric Company (MERALCO), Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Lino A. Fernandez, Jr. was dismissed by respondent MERALCO in 2000. The Court of Appeals later declared his dismissal illegal, ordering his reinstatement with full backwages, or separation pay if reinstatement was no longer feasible. This decision became final and executory in 2008. During execution proceedings, MERALCO opted to pay separation pay. The Labor Arbiter issued an Order on June 27, 2014, declaring Fernandez legally separated effective January 31, 2009, and awarding additional monetary claims. Fernandez received the Order on July 4, 2014.
On July 11, 2014, within the 10-day reglementary period, Fernandez filed a “Notice of Appeal and Memorandum on Appeal.” Realizing this was the incorrect remedy for assailing a Labor Arbiter’s order in execution proceedings, he filed a “Motion to Treat Remedy Previously Filed As Verified Petition” on July 23, 2014. The Labor Arbiter noted these pleadings without action, deeming them prohibited. Fernandez subsequently filed a proper Verified Petition with the NLRC on August 26, 2014, which was denied for being filed out of time.
ISSUE
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Fernandez’s Verified Petition for being filed out of time.
RULING
Yes, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court ruled that Fernandez’s initial filing on July 11, 2014—though incorrectly captioned as an appeal—substantially complied with the requirement for a timely Verified Petition under the NLRC Rules. The filing was made within the 10-day reglementary period from receipt of the assailed Order. Technicalities of procedure should not be strictly applied in labor cases to frustrate substantive rights. The essence of the filing was to challenge the Labor Arbiter’s order, and it contained the necessary verification and certification against forum shopping.
The subsequent motion to treat the initial filing as a Verified Petition merely sought to correct a formal defect and did not constitute a new filing. Therefore, the period for filing should be reckoned from July 11, 2014, rendering the subsequent proper petition filed on August 26, 2014 as merely a formal amendment. Dismissing the petition on purely technical grounds, when the intent to seek review was timely and evident, constituted a disregard of the liberal interpretation mandated in labor proceedings. The case was remanded to the NLRC for resolution on the merits.