THIRD DIVISION
[UDK 16975. August 23, 2022.]
JENALYN CORONADO LARAÑO, ARNOLD BELNAS MEDALLA, ABRIL CAPISTRANO PANES, ET AL., petitioners,vs.MDC BUILD PLUS, ADVENTURER'S MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE [AMCOOP]/RODELITO J. OCAMPO, RODOLFO T. CORPUZ, JR., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 23, 2022, which reads as follows: CAIHTE
"UDK 16975 (Jenalyn Coronado Laraño, Arnold Belnas Medalla, Abril Capistrano Panes, et al. v. MDC Build Plus, Adventurer's Multi-Purpose Cooperative [AMCOOP]/Rodelito J. Ocampo, Rodolfo T. Corpuz, Jr.). — Petitioners remonstrate against the Decision1 dated 21 September 2020 and Resolution2 dated 25 May 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 163762, which dismissed their Petition for Certiorari and denied the Motion for Reconsideration 3 thereof, respectively.
The Petition deserves short shrift.
First off, timeliness of an appeal is a factual issue that requires a review of the evidence presented when the appeal was filed, and when the appealing party received the assailed decision or resolution. Generally, in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised, and the Court will not normally undertake a re-examination of the evidence presented before the court a quo. 4
As concurrently held by the NLRC and the CA, petitioners' bare assertion that they did not receive a copy of the Labor Arbiter's Decision is exiguously inadequate to justify setting aside an already binding, final, and executory judgment. Their subsequent filing of a Petition for Extraordinary Remedies is but a ploy, a futile attempt to substitute the appeal that was irretrievably lost since the period for filing the same had lapsed. This Court finds no cogent reason to depart from such disposition.
Time and again, it has been held that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. A party who seeks to avail of the right must, therefore, comply with the requirements of the rules, failing which the right to appeal is invariably lost. Insofar as appeals from decisions of the Labor Arbiter are concerned, Article 229 [223] 5 of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides that, "(d)ecisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the NLRC by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from the receipt of such decisions, awards or orders." Anent a judgment involving a monetary award, "an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the [NLRC] in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from." 6
Appositely, the requisites for the perfection of an appeal are fleshed out in Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure 7 —
RULE VIAppeals
SECTION 1. Periods of Appeal. — Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter shall be final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof; and in case of decisions or resolutions of the Regional Director of the Department of Labor and Employment pursuant to Article 129 of the Code, within five (5) calendar days from receipt thereof. If the 10th or 5th day, as the case may be, falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, the last day to perfect the appeal shall be the first working day following such Saturday, Sunday or holiday.
No motion or request for extension of the period within which to perfect an appeal shall be allowed.
SECTION 2. Grounds. — The 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 or Regional Director;
b) If the decision, award or order was secured through fraud or coercion, including graft and corruption;
c) If made purely on questions of law; and/or
d) If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which, if not corrected, would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.
SECTION 3. Where Filed. — The appeal shall be filed with the Regional Arbitration Branch or Regional Office where the case was heard and decided.
SECTION 4. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal. —
a) The appeal shall be:
(1) filed within the reglementary period provided in Section 1 of this Rule;
(2) verified by the appellant himself/herself in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, as amended;
(3) in the form of a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof, the relief prayed for, and with a statement of the date the appellant received the appealed decision, award or order;
(4) in three (3) legibly typewritten or printed copies; and
(5) accompanied by:
i) proof of payment of the required appeal fee and legal research fee;
ii) posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; and
iii) proof of service upon the other parties.
b) A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal.
c) The appellee may file with the Regional Arbitration Branch or Regional Office where the appeal was filed, his/her answer or reply to appellant's memorandum of appeal, not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof. Failure on the part of the appellee who was properly furnished with a copy of the appeal to file his/her answer or reply within the said period may be construed as a waiver on his/her part to file the same.
d) Subject to the provisions of Article 218 of the Code, once the appeal is perfected in accordance with these Rules, the Commission shall limit itself to reviewing and deciding only the specific issues that were elevated on appeal. 8
In the case at bench, the assailed Decision of the Labor Arbiter has long become final and executory, as evinced by the Entry of Judgment, due to petitioners' total failure to file an appeal within the reglementary period and respondents' belated challenge thereto. It is primal that a judgment, once it has attained finality, can never be altered, amended, or modified, even if the alteration, amendment or modification is to correct an erroneous judgment. 9 While there are recognized exceptions to this principle, none have been shown to apply in the case at bench.
Finally, petitioners' imputation of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence — that purportedly prevented them from appealing the LA Decision — as one of the grounds to seek extraordinary remedies likewise lacks factual and legal mooring.
Perforce, the CA committed no reversible error in sustaining the NLRC Special Division's dismissal of petitioners' Petition for Certiorari for lack of merit.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 21 September 2020 and the Resolution dated 25 May 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 163762 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 671-682, Vol. II.
2. Id. at 703-705.
3. Id. at 684-690.
4. See Papertech, Inc. v. Papertech Labor Union, G.R. No. 217878, 6 July 2021.
5. Labor Code of the Philippines, Presidential Decree No. 442 (Amended & Renumbered, 21 July 2015).
6. Manila Mining Corp. v. Amor, G.R. No. 182800, 20 April 2015.
7. Approved on 31 May 2011.
8. Id.
9. Bright International Manpower Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 256310, 28 June 2021.