G.R. No. L-71177. February 29, 1988.
ERECTORS, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND DANILO CRIS, respondents.

FACTS

Danilo Cris, an overseas contract worker, filed a complaint for illegal termination against his employer, Erectors, Inc., before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). The POEA ruled in favor of Cris, ordering the petitioner to pay his unpaid salaries for the unexpired contract term. The petitioner received the POEA decision on October 25, 1984. On November 9, 1984, fifteen calendar days later, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which treated it as an appeal.
The NLRC dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time. The petitioner, through counsel, sought review by the Supreme Court, arguing the appeal was timely. It contended that the governing 1984 POEA Rules prescribed a ten-working-day period for filing appeals. To support this, petitioner’s counsel cited specific, purportedly existing POEA rules: Rule XXIV, Section 1, and Rule XXV, Section 2, which allegedly used the term “working days.”

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (treated as an appeal) to the NLRC was filed within the reglementary period.

RULING

No, the appeal was filed out of time. The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC’s dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on the correct computation of the appeal period and the Court’s condemnation of counsel’s dishonesty. The petitioner erroneously argued for a ten-working-day period based on fabricated rules. The Court verified that the cited Rule XXIV and Rule XXV did not exist in the 1984 POEA Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment, which were in force at the time.
The applicable rule was Book VII, Rule 5, Section 1 of the 1984 POEA Rules, which explicitly states that a motion for reconsideration must be filed “within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the decision.” The Court emphasized that the term “calendar days” is simple and precise, requiring no interpretation. This ten-calendar-day period is consistent with the Court’s prior ruling in Vir-Jen Shipping & Marine Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, which construed similar periods under the Labor Code as calendar days to ensure the expeditious resolution of labor cases, preventing employers from using delay to the disadvantage of workers.
Since the petitioner received the POEA decision on October 25, 1984, it had only until November 4, 1984 (ten calendar days later) to perfect an appeal. Filing on November 9, 1984 was clearly five days late. The Court strongly admonished the petitioner’s counsels for their “flagrant dishonesty” in citing non-existent laws to mislead the Court and delay proceedings, warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. The petition was dismissed, and the POEA decision was affirmed as immediately executory.