Tabique v. Rural Transit [Mindanao], Inc.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 215984. July 30, 2019.]

RODULFO T. TABIQUE AND GREGORIO P. BEBIRO, petitioners, vs.RURAL TRANSIT [MINDANAO], INC., RAUL LECHADO AND NOEL DADOR, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 30, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 215984 (Rodulfo T. Tabique and Gregorio P. Bebiro v. Rural Transit [Mindanao], Inc., Raul Lechado and Noel Dador). — The liberal interpretation of the rules applies only to justifiable causes and meritorious circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities and that rules of procedure shall not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial justice, it must be emphasized that procedural rules should not, likewise, be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance might result in prejudice to a party's substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed, except only for the most persuasive of reasons. 1 No such reasons are present in this case.

On April 28, 2009, petitioners Rodulfo T. Tabique (Tabique) and Gregorio P. Bebiro (Bebiro), together with Franklin A. Luna (Luna) and Joey S. Obedencia (Obedencia), filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of 13th month pay against respondents Rural Transit (Mindanao), Inc. (RTMI), Raul Lechado (RTMI Branch Manager) and Noel Dador (RTMI supervisor). 2 They claimed to be employees of RTMI who were assigned to work as repairmen at the Maintenance/Preventive/Mandatory (MPM) section of RTMI's operations center in Bulua, Cagayan de Oro City. Tabique, Luna, Bebiro and Obedencia allegedly started working with RTMI in 1998, 1988, 1986 and 1980, respectively. However, for unknown reasons, their services were terminated on March 30, 2009. Dador purportedly told them to stop working, after which they were no longer given job orders and were barred entry to company premises. 3

On September 8, 2009, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision 4 dismissing the complaint due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties. Petitioners received a copy of the Decision on October 5, 2009. Thus, they had until October 15, 2009, 5 or 10 days from receipt of the Decision, within which to perfect their appeal.

On October 13, 2009, petitioners filed a notice of appeal. Subsequently, respondents filed a manifestation asserting that petitioners' undated notice of appeal should be dismissed for want of the required memorandum of appeal. 6

On January 26, 2010, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) rendered a Resolution 7 dismissing petitioners' notice of appeal for non-perfection. It held that petitioners filed a notice of appeal without a memorandum of appeal, as required under Section 4, Rule VI of the 2005 NLRC Rules of Procedure. Moreover, the same rules provide that a mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal. The NLRC noted that despite the statement of petitioners' counsel that a memorandum of appeal will be submitted, no such memorandum of appeal was found in the records of the case.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, 8 asserting that they filed a memorandum of appeal on November 11, 2009. They attributed the delay in filing to respondents' counsel in Cagayan de Oro City, who refused to receive a copy of the memorandum of appeal, advising petitioners instead to have it received by the head office in Bacolod City. Petitioners allegedly lost several days in the process of having the memorandum of appeal received by the Cagayan de Oro office.

On September 30, 2010, the NLRC issued a Resolution 9 granting the motion for reconsideration. It vacated and set aside the LA Decision and remanded the case to the Regional Arbitration Branch of origin or the LA for the joinder of United Skilled Workers Multi-Purpose Cooperative as an indispensable party and the conduct of further proceedings. The NLRC held that on November 11, 2009, petitioner filed a memorandum of appeal with the Regional Arbitration Branch. This was forwarded to and received by the NLRC only on December 3, 2009. Hence, it did not form part of the records of the case that the NLRC reviewed at the time it rendered its Resolution on January 26, 2010.

Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. 10 Hence, they filed a petition for certiorari11 with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 04251-MIN. On July 18, 2014, the CA rendered a Decision 12 granting the petition, setting aside the NLRC Resolution, and dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal.

The CA held that the NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction when it reinstated the appeal and remanded the case to the LA notwithstanding the filing of petitioners' memorandum of appeal well beyond the 10-day inextendible period to perfect the appeal. Petitioners filed their notice of appeal with a note that the "Memorandum on Appeal will be submitted" on October 13, 2009 to the LA. A perusal of the case records, however, reveals that petitioners' appeal memorandum dated October 16, 2009 was filed with the Regional Arbitration Branch only on November 11, 2009. Since the appeal memorandum was clearly filed beyond the reglementary period, no appeal was perfected on time and the September 8, 2009 LA Decision lapsed into finality. 13 The CA also found that petitioners failed to offer any explanation that would justify the NLRC's resolution to relax the stringent application of the rules and allow an already dormant appeal to be revived. 14

Petitioners sought a reconsideration of the Decision, but without success. 15 Hence, they filed the present petition. 16

Petitioners maintain that the CA gravely erred in strictly applying the Rules of Procedure notwithstanding their valid explanation on the late filing of their memorandum of appeal. As they explained in their motion for reconsideration before the NLRC, there was confusion on who should receive the memorandum on appeal — whether it should be respondents' counsel based in Bacolod City or the counsel based in Cagayan de Oro City. The counsel based in Cagayan De Oro City refused to receive the memorandum of appeal and told petitioners that it is the head office in Bacolod City that should do so. Thus, the late filing of the memorandum of appeal was due to circumstances beyond petitioners' control. 17 Petitioners also insisted that there was an employer-employee relationship between them and RTMI, and invoked the CA to set aside technicalities in the interest of justice. 18

We deny the petition.

In Manila Mining Corporation v. Amor, 19 We reiterated the rule that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process. Rather, it is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, a party who seeks to avail of the right must comply with the requirements of the rules, failing which the right to appeal is invariably lost.

Article 223 of the Labor Code provides in part that "[d]ecisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the [National Labor Relations] Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such Decisions, awards or orders x x x." This is echoed in Section 1, Rule VI of the 2005 NLRC Rules of Procedure, the governing set of rules at the time petitioners filed their notice of appeal. Section 4, Rule VI of the same rules provides the requisites for the perfection of appeals, thus:

Sec. 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 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, resolution or order; 4) in three (3) legibly typewritten or printed copies; and 5) accompanied by i) proof of payment of the required appeal fee; ii) posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; iii) a certificate of non-forum shopping; and iv) 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. (Emphasis and italics supplied.)

Here, considering that petitioners received the LA Decision on October 5, 2009, they had until October 15, 2009 to perfect the appeal. They filed a notice of appeal on October 13, 2009, but they did not attach the required memorandum of appeal. They were able to file it only on November 11, 2009. Thus, in accordance with Section 4, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure cited above, petitioners' notice of appeal did not stop the running of the 10-calendar day period for perfecting an appeal. At the time petitioners filed their memorandum of appeal on November 11, 2009, the LA Decision dated September 8, 2009 had already attained finality.

The CA is justified in strictly applying the NLRC rules on the perfection of appeals. In De Leon v. Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation, 20 We explained that the resort to a liberal application, or the suspension of the application of procedural rules, must remain as the exception to the well-settled principle that rules must be complied with for the orderly administration of justice. To merit liberality, petitioners must show reasonable cause justifying their non-compliance with the rules and must convince the Court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of substantial justice. The desired leniency cannot be accorded absent valid and compelling reasons for such a procedural lapse. 21

The CA correctly ruled that petitioners failed to provide a justifiable explanation for their failure to timely file a memorandum of appeal. They could not have been confused as to which counsel should be served the memorandum of appeal since petitioners' manifestation and the numerous NLRC Resolutions clearly indicate that the law firm of Villaflores and Associates, with office address at Ceres Compound, Mansilingan Bacolod City, is the counsel on record of respondents. Thus, the records dispel any doubt as to where counsel for petitioners should furnish a copy of his clients' pleadings. The CA also noted that it was only on September 19, 2012 that Atty. Carlito L. Nuevas of the Nuevas and Nuevas Law Office with office address at Nazareth, Cagayan de Oro City, entered his appearance before the CA as the collaborating counsel of petitioners. 22

The relaxation of procedural rules in the interest of justice was never intended to be a license for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. Thus, for petitioners' failure to timely file their memorandum of appeal and finding their explanation to be without merit, We rule that petitioners already lost their right to appeal the LA Decision 23 dated September 8, 2009.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 18, 2014 and Resolution dated November 14, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 04251-MIN are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Turks Shawarma Company v. Pajaron, G.R. No. 207156, January 16, 2017, 814 SCRA 359, 375-376.

2.Rollo, pp. 14, 57.

3.Id. at 14-15.

4.Id. at 57-64.

5.Id. at 16, 99.

6.Id. at 29.

7.Id. at 65-67.

8.Id. at 68-70.

9.Id. at 72-76.

10.Id. at 104-107; see NLRC Resolution dated February 28, 2011.

11.Rollo, pp. 81-88.

12.Id. at 28-34; penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Henri Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court).

13.Id. at 31-32.

14.Id. at 33.

15.Id. at 43-45; see CA Resolution dated November 14, 2012.

16.Rollo, pp. 12-26.

17.Id. at 17-18.

18.Id. at 19-22.

19. G.R. No. 182800, April 20, 2015, 756 SCRA 15.

20. G.R. No. 183239, June 2, 2014, 724 SCRA 309.

21.De Leon v. Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 183239, June 2, 2014, 724 SCRA 309, 319-320, citing Building Care Corporation/Leopard Security & Investigation Agency v. Macaraeg, G.R. No. 198357, December 10, 2012, 687 SCRA 643, 647.

22.Rollo, p. 44.

23.Supra note 4.