In the Matter of Petition for Declaration of a State of Suspension of Payments with Proposed Rehabilitation Plan of Rubberworld Philippines, Inc.

July 8, 2016 SEC EN BANC CASE NO. 06-16-405 IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF A STATE OF SUSPENSION OF PAYMENTS WITH PROPOSED REHABILITATION PLAN OF RUBBERWORLD PHILIPPINES, INC. CARLOS S. TAN , appellant . RESOLUTION For resolution of the Commission is an Appeal filed by Carlos S. Tan ("Appellant") on 15 June 2016 1 from the Order dated 30 July 2014 ("Assailed Order") issued by the Special Hearing Panel I (SHP) in relation to SEC Case No. 11-94-4920 entitled In the Matter of the Petition for Declaration of a State of Suspension of Payments with Proposed Rehabilitation Plan , the dispositive portion of which states: In view of the foregoing, it is hereby resolved to: 1. Apply the provision on Gratuity Pay under Section 1, Article X of the CBA; 2. Use the year 1994 as the cut-off date for the computation of the workers' claims; 3. Adopt the list submitted by Opal, as well as the amount of claims indicated thereat, which already included other factors such as SL/VL, 13th month pay, and tax refund; 4. Include the list of resigned (Annex "A") and retrenched (Annex "B") employees in the list of workers submitted by Opal; 5. Exclude the Board of Directors and Corporate Officers indicated in the 1992 GIS of RWPI in the grant of Gratuity Pay; 6. Deduct from the workers' claims the amount of advances and money judgment awarded and distributed to employees, if any. SO ORDERED. On appeal, Appellant admitted that the Assailed Order was received sometime in August 2014. Clearly, the Appeal is filed outside the reglementary period under Rule XI, Section 11-2 of the 2006 Rules of Procedure of the Commission ("2006 Rules"), which provides that appeals are to be filed with the Commission En Banc within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Decision, Order, or Ruling. Thus, a dismissal of the instant Appeal is in order, pursuant to Section 11-6 of the 2006 Rules. 2 While Appellant admits his failure to timely file the instant Appeal , he attempted to justify the same by claiming that it was made through mistake and excusable negligence. In support of this claim, he submitted an Affidavit of Merit , 3 excerpts therefrom read: . . . I just decided to contact the other corporate officers named therein for enlightenment until such time that I have overlook the passage of time and/or by oversight , awaiting to communicate even with one of them. . . . 4 (emphasis supplied) Jurisprudence defines "mistake" as an error in action or a blunder, 5 and "excusable negligence" as one that ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against. 6 In the case at bar, Appellant admitted oversight as the cause of his failure to timely act on the matter when he received the Assailed Order. Jurisprudence holds that oversight is neither an error 7 in action nor avoidable 8 that shall exonerate a party in his failure to do the necessary action in judicial or administrative cases. ETHIDa Considering that Appellant's failure to comply with the 2006 Rules in connection with appeals is unjustified, a dismissal of the instant Appeal is proper. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Pasay City, Philippines, July 8, 2016. (SGD.) TERESITA J. HERBOSA Chairperson (SGD.) MANUEL HUBERTO B. GAITE Commissioner (On Leave) ANTONIETA F. IBE Commissioner (SGD.) EPHYRO LUIS B. AMATONG Commissioner (SGD.) BLAS JAMES G. VITERBO Commissioner Footnotes 1. Dated 8 June 2016. 2. Section 11-6. Dismissal of Appeal for Non-Compliance . The appeal may be dismissed by the Commission En Banc for failure to comply with these Rules, or failure to perfect the appeal within the prescribed period . (emphasis ours) 3. Annex "A" of the Appeal . 4. Paragraph 1 of the Affidavit of Merit . 5. Coombs vs. Santos , G.R. No. L-7644, 24 March 1913. 6. Guevara and Bantugan vs. Spouses Bautista, et al. , G.R. No. 148435, 28 November 2008. 7. See Note 6. 8. See Note 7.