G.R. No. 72572 . December 19, 1989.
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER LOLITO C. FULLEROS and ANTONIO MANGAMPO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) filed an application for clearance to terminate the services of private respondent Antonio Mangampo, a warehouseman-cashier, on grounds of alleged misappropriation of company funds. After proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, where SMC failed to appear at scheduled hearings, the Arbiter ruled in favor of Mangampo, ordering his reinstatement with backwages. SMC received this decision on July 18, 1984, and subsequently appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Mangampo moved to dismiss the appeal for being filed beyond the ten-day reglementary period. SMC claimed it mailed the appeal on July 27, 1984, presenting a xerox copy of a registry receipt with a handwritten date to that effect. The NLRC, however, found the appeal was mailed on August 6, 1984, as indicated by the post office stamp on the envelope attached to the records. The NLRC dismissed the appeal as untimely and denied SMC’s motion for reconsideration, giving more credence to the official post office stamp than to the unauthenticated xerox copy of the receipt.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing SMC’s appeal for being filed out of time and in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision ordering Mangampo’s reinstatement.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC’s dismissal of the appeal and upheld the Labor Arbiter’s decision, as modified. On procedural grounds, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC’s ruling that the appeal was filed out of time. Under the Rules of Court, the date of mailing for registered mail is shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt. The date stamped on the envelope (August 6, 1984) was part of the official records and was afforded greater weight than the handwritten date on an unauthenticated xerox copy of a registry receipt submitted by SMC. The appeal, filed 19 days after SMC received the Arbiter’s decision, was correctly dismissed as untimely.
Substantively, even assuming the appeal was timely, the Court found SMC’s application for termination devoid of merit. The charge of misappropriation and loss of trust and confidence was unsupported by substantial evidence. The Labor Arbiter’s factual findings, which the Court generally respects, revealed a paucity of proof connecting Mangampo to the loss of funds. Investigations failed to establish his complicity, and access to the safe was not exclusive to him. Dismissal cannot be based on mere conjecture. The Court modified the Arbiter’s award, limiting backwages to three years without deductions.