G.R. No. 69018; January 29, 1990
ERNESTO S. DIZON, JR., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION, HON. LABOR ARBITER VIRGINIA G. SON, AGUINALDO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, JOSE G. RICAFORT, CONRADO T. CALALANG, EDGAR D. DE CASTRO and BENJAMIN V. ARITAO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ernesto S. Dizon, Jr., an Assistant to the President with seventeen years of service at Aguinaldo Development Corporation (ADECOR), submitted a letter of resignation effective October 31, 1981. He alleged that respondent President Jose G. Ricafort ordered him to resign, promising payment of all entitlements. The following day, Ricafort accepted the resignation via a memorandum but withheld clearance pending an investigation into Dizon’s field activities. On November 4, 1981, Dizon withdrew his resignation, stating he wished to defend himself if under investigation. Management rejected the withdrawal, reiterating his separation.
Dizon subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of 13th month pay, salary increases, and accrued vacation and sick leaves. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint, finding the resignation voluntary, but ordered payment for unused leaves. Both parties appealed to the NLRC. Dizon moved to dismiss the company’s appeal as filed out of time. The NLRC affirmed the Arbiter’s decision but modified the award, limiting cash conversion of unused leaves to 1981 only.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether Dizon was illegally dismissed; and (2) whether the NLRC erred in modifying the Labor Arbiter’s award on unused vacation and sick leaves despite the company’s untimely appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition regarding the illegal dismissal claim but granted it concerning the modification of the monetary award. On the first issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC’s affirmation that Dizon voluntarily resigned. The evidence did not substantiate his claim of being forced or induced by promises of benefits. His act of submitting a resignation letter, followed by a withdrawal only after learning of a pending investigation, indicated voluntariness. His belated claims for 13th month pay and salary differentials, never demanded during his long employment, further weakened his credibility.
On the second issue, the Court held that the NLRC committed a reversible error. The reglementary period to appeal a Labor Arbiter’s decision is ten calendar days. Private respondents filed their appeal fourteen calendar days after receipt, rendering it late and perfunctory. A fundamental procedural rule is that a party who does not appeal, or whose appeal is filed out of time, cannot obtain a modification of the judgment in their favor. The NLRC, therefore, had no appellate jurisdiction over the company’s appeal to modify the award. Consequently, the Labor Arbiter’s original award for the cash conversion of all accrued unused vacation and sick leaves became final and executory against the company. The NLRC’s decision was modified to reinstate the Arbiter’s full award on leaves, while affirmed in all other respects.