G.R. No. 94012 February 17, 1993
DOMINGO RAMONES, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and CONSTELLATION MANPOWER RECRUITMENT, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Domingo Ramones was recruited by private respondent Constellation Manpower Recruitment, Inc. for employment as a body builder for Marwan Establishment in Saudi Arabia under a two-year contract. On February 7, 1985, he was given a 30-day notice of termination. About three days later, his IQAMA (Saudi identification card) was confiscated, restricting his movement. On March 10, 1985, after signing a certificate of release, he received a final settlement. On April 15, 1985, he filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for illegal dismissal, among other claims. The POEA decided in his favor on November 6, 1986, ordering private respondent to pay US$3,684.99. Private respondent received the decision on November 14, 1986, but did not file an appeal within the 10-day reglementary period. Instead, on December 5, 1986, it filed an “Urgent Motion for Relief from Decision and/or Motion for Reconsideration,” attributing the failure to appeal to the excusable negligence of its counsel, Atty. Antonio A. San Vicente, who had left for New York on November 19, 1986, to assume a post as labor attache. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) granted the motion, treated it as an appeal, set aside the POEA decision, and dismissed the complaint. Petitioner seeks reinstatement of the POEA decision.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting private respondent’s motion for relief and treating it as an appeal, thereby reversing the final and executory decision of the POEA.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, declared the NLRC decision and resolution null and void, and reinstated the POEA decision as final and executory. The Court held that the POEA decision had become final and executory due to private respondent’s failure to perfect an appeal within the mandatory and jurisdictional 10-day period. The negligence of private respondent’s counsel was not excusable. Counsel was appointed as labor attache on June 20, 1985, giving private respondent ample time to secure alternative representation before his departure on November 19, 1986. Even assuming counsel left shortly after private respondent received the POEA decision on November 14, 1986, he still had several days to inform his client but failed to do so. His negligence binds the client. Furthermore, the Labor Code provides a specific appeal procedure; a motion for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court cannot supplant this. The NLRC’s act of reopening a final judgment constituted grave abuse of discretion.