CASE DIGEST: Manaya vs Alabang Country Club, G.R. No. 168988 June 19, 2007

Doctrine:

ART. 223. APPEAL. Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. Such appeal may be entertained only on any of the following grounds:

(a) If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter;

(b) If the decision, order or award was secured through fraud or coercion, including graft an corruption;

(c) If made purely on question of law; and

(d) If serious errors in the finding of facts are raised which would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.

Facts:

Petitioner alleged that on 21 August 1989, he was initially hired by the respondent as a maintenance helper receiving a salary of P198.00 per day. He was later designated as company electrician. He continued to work for the respondent until 22 August 1998 when the latter, through its Engineering and Maintenance Department Manager, Engr. Ronnie B. de la Cruz, informed him that his services were no longer required by the company. Petitioner alleged that he was forcibly and illegally dismissed without cause and without due process on 22 August 1998. Hence, he filed a Complaint before the Labor Arbiter. He claimed that he had not committed any infraction of company policies or rules and that he was not paid his service incentive leave pay, holiday pay and 13^th month pay. He further asserted that with his more or less nine years of service with the respondent, he had become a regular employee. He, therefore, demanded his reinstatement without loss of seniority rights with full backwages and all monetary benefits due him.

 Respondent denied that petitioner was its employee. It countered by saying that petitioner was employed by First Staffing Network Corporation (FSNC), with which respondent had an existing Memorandum of Agreement dated 21 August 1989. Thus, by virtue of a legitimate job contracting, petitioner, as an employee of FSNC, came to work with respondent, first, as a maintenance helper, and subsequently as an electrician. Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the complaint insisting that petitioner had no cause of action against it.

LA held: respondent Alabang Country Club, Inc., as aforediscussed. His dismissal from the service having been effected without just and valid cause and without the due observance of due process is hereby declared illegal.WHEREFORE, premises considered, complainant Fernando G. Manaya is hereby found to be a regular employee of

The NLRC found that respondents counsel of record Atty. Angelina A. Mailon of Monsod, Valencia and Associates received a copy of the Labor Arbiters Decision on or before 11 December 2000 as shown by the postal stamp or registry return card. Said counsel did not file a withdrawal of appearance. Instead, a Memorandum of Appeal dated 26 December 2000 was filed by the respondents new counsel, Atty. Arizala of Tierra and Associates Law Office. Reckoned from 11 December 2000, the date of receipt of the Decision by respondents previous counsel, the filing of the Memorandum of Appeal by its new counsel on 26 December 2000 was clearly made beyond the reglementary period. The NLRC held that the failure to perfect an appeal within the statutory period is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. The appeal having been belatedly filed, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter had become final and executory.

Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the NLRC denied in a Resolution dated 30 October 2002.The NLRC held that the decision of the Labor Arbiter has become final and executory on 28 November 2002; thus, Entry of Judgment, dated 8 January 2003 was issued.

Issue: W/ON THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR WHEN IT ORDERED THE NLRC TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO THE APPEAL OF RESPONDENT ALABANG COUNTRY CLUB, INCORPORATED EVEN IF THE SAID APPEAL WAS FILED BEYOND THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD OF TEN (10) DAYS FOR PERFECTING AN APPEAL

Held: No. Art. 223 of the Labor Code. Appeal may be done on the following grounds. (a) If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter (b) If the decision, order or award was secured through fraud or coercion, including graft and corruption; (c) If made purely on question of law; and (d) If serious errors in the finding of facts are raised which would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant. Respondent failed to show the existence of any of the above. A more than perfunctory reading of the Decision of the Labor Arbiter shows that the same is supported by the evidence on record.

Source and Full 
Text: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_168988_2007.html