G.R. No. 75363 August 4, 1992
FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY EMPLOYEES UNION, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR DOMINGO ZAPANTA, respondents.

FACTS

The dispute involves the correct formula for computing vacation leave pay under the 1980-1983 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between petitioner Firestone Tire and Rubber Company of the Philippines and respondent Firestone Tire and Rubber Company Employees Union (FEU). Under previous CBAs (1973-1976, 1977-1980, and 1978-1980), vacation leave pay for the first two weeks was computed using a constant divisor of 12, based on 4% of the employee’s previous year’s gross earnings. Additional days beyond the two weeks were paid at the employee’s current base rate. The 1980-1983 CBA changed the structure, granting a specific number of working days (13 to 17, depending on service length) and calculating pay using a specified percentage (4.33% to 5.6%) of the previous year’s gross earnings. Petitioner implemented a new formula using the number of vacation leave days as the divisor. The Union objected, claiming this new formula was disadvantageous as it reduced the daily cash equivalent for longer-serving employees. The parties submitted the dispute to voluntary arbitration. On July 14, 1981, Voluntary Arbitrator Domingo Zapanta issued a Resolution directing the company to continue using 12 as the divisor. Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration on September 7, 1981 (dated August 15, 1981), which was denied on September 25, 1981. Petitioner then appealed to the NLRC on October 16, 1981. The NLRC dismissed the appeal on June 23, 1983, ruling it was filed beyond the reglementary period, as the Motion for Reconsideration was itself filed late (23 days after the company’s receipt of the Resolution on August 11, 1981). The NLRC’s denial of petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration on June 17, 1986, led to this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the public respondents (NLRC and Voluntary Arbitrator) acted with grave abuse of discretion and/or excess of jurisdiction in: 1) imposing a formula for commutation of vacation leave contrary to the CBA’s expressed intention, and 2) the voluntary arbitrator altering the terms of the CBA.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The primary and dispositive ground for dismissal was petitioner’s failure to perfect its appeal within the reglementary period. The Court upheld the NLRC’s finding that petitioner received the Voluntary Arbitrator’s July 14, 1981 Resolution on August 11, 1981. Petitioner’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration was filed only on September 7, 1981, which was 23 days later and thus beyond the 10-day reglementary period for appeal. Treating the motion as an appeal did not cure the defect of tardiness. The Court emphasized the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of appeal periods, especially in labor cases, to prevent delays. The Court also noted that petitioner’s claim of non-receipt of the Resolution by its counsel was raised only in a Sur-Rejoinder filed six years later (August 31, 1987) and was thus barred by estoppel. Given this procedural lapse, the Resolution had become final and executory. The Court found it unnecessary to rule substantively on the alleged grave abuse of discretion regarding the interpretation of the CBA.