GR 83699; (February, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 83699 February 21, 1989
PHILAMLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, petitioner, vs. HON. EDNA BONTO-PEREZ, CONRADO B. MAGLAYA and ROSARIO G. ENCARNACION and/or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY FFW & GIL TAMAYO, respondents.
FACTS
The private respondents, an employees’ association and Gil Tamayo, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner Philamlife Insurance Company. After proceedings, Labor Arbiter Bienvenido S. Hernandez rendered a decision on March 21, 1986, finding illegal dismissal and ordering Philamlife to pay back wages, separation pay, and attorney’s fees. A copy of this decision was served on Philamlife’s counsel on April 16, 1986.
Within the ten-day reglementary period, Philamlife filed its “Appeal with Appeal Memorandum” by registered mail on April 26, 1986. However, the required appeal docketing fee was not paid simultaneously. The fee was eventually paid only on June 11, 1986. Consequently, the complainants moved for execution, arguing the decision had become final due to the non-perfection of the appeal. The Labor Arbiter elevated the issue to the NLRC, which, in a Resolution dated May 6, 1988, held the decision final and executory due to the late payment of the appeal fee and ordered its execution.
ISSUE
Whether the failure to pay the appeal fee within the reglementary period for appealing a Labor Arbiter’s decision renders the decision final and executory, thereby foreclosing the appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the NLRC Resolution. The Court distinguished the case from Acda v. Minister of Labor, where no appeal fee was paid at all, which strictly mandates that timely payment is essential for perfection. Here, the fee was paid, albeit late. The Court applied the more liberal doctrine enunciated in Del Rosario & Son Logging Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC, which held that where the appeal fee has been paid, although delayed, the broader interests of justice and the objective of resolving controversies on their merits demand that the appeal be given due course.
The Court emphasized that under Article 221 of the Labor Code, labor tribunals are enjoined to use all reasonable means to ascertain facts without regard to technicalities of law or procedure. The NLRC possesses the inherent power to allow late payment under these circumstances to serve the interests of due process. The Court also found Philamlife’s explanation for the delay—involving difficulties in tendering payment at the NLRC office—credible and a ground for liberal treatment. Thus, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal purely on a technicality. The Commission was directed to give due course to and decide the appeal on its merits.