G.R. No. L-13846; May 20, 1960
PANGASINAN EMPLOYEE LABORERS AND TENANTS ASSOCIATION (PELTA), and PATRICIO TULIAO, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE ARSENIO I. MARTINEZ, Associate Judge of the Court of Industrial Relations, PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., (PANTRANCO), JOHN MCGUINNES and JUAN ANDRES, respondents.

FACTS

On August 11, 1953, Patricio Tuliao, a bus driver, drove a bus inside the Pantranco terminal station at Alaminos, Pangasinan. As he was not an authorized driver at the time, the traffic superintendent suspended him for 30 days. This dismissal was brought before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) upon petition of his labor union. Judge Modesto Castillo found that Tuliao drove the bus to save it and its cargo from the rain, held the suspension unjustified, and ordered his reinstatement with back wages. This Court affirmed Judge Castillo’s order in a prior case (Pantranco, et al., vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., 101 Phil., 480).
Upon the return of the record to the court below, Tuliao’s case was heard on a stipulation of facts. Judge Arsenio I. Martinez then issued an order detailing the computation of Tuliao’s back wages. The order stipulated, among other things, that: (1) Tuliao was not entitled to wages for the period of a strike (October 24, 1953 to January 18, 1954) as he did not render services; (2) his total earnings from another employer (Golden Taxicab) during his dismissal period should be deducted from his total award; and (3) the award’s effectivity date, living allowance rate, and vacation leave were specified.
The Rules of the CIR required a motion for reconsideration to be filed within fifteen days. A dispute arose as to whether the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of Judge Martinez’s order was filed on time. An affidavit from the petitioners’ clerk-messenger claimed it was filed on March 31, 1958. An affidavit from the CIR building’s caretaker stated it was presented on April 2, 1958, and the receiving clerk refused to accept it that evening. The CIR considered the motion filed out of time and did not act on it.

ISSUE

Was the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration filed with the Court of Industrial Relations within the reglementary period, thereby making the order of Judge Arsenio I. Martinez final and unappealable?

RULING

No, the motion for reconsideration was filed out of time. The Supreme Court agreed with the court below in considering the motion as not having been filed within the reglementary period. The Court noted that the motion should have been filed with the clerk or receiving officer during office hours, or at least during the evening of the last day (March 31, 1958), given the practice of the receiving clerk to accept papers after hours. However, based on the conflicting affidavits, the Court found the motion was not filed timely. It criticized the failure of the receiving clerk to accept the motion and stamp it with the actual date and hour of receipt, which would have clarified the matter. Since the motion for reconsideration was filed out of time, the order of Judge Arsenio I. Martinez had become final and executory. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.