THE UNIVERSITY OF NUEVA CACERES, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. RUBEN D. TORRES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, THE UNIVERSITY OF NUEVA CACERES TEACHERS ALL…

The sole issue presented in the instant petition for certiorari
filed by the University of Nueva Caceres is whether or not the Secretary of
Labor and Employment committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing its
appeal on the ground of late filing. The merit of the appeal is not in issue here.

The following facts are undisputed:

On August 8, 1989, the respondent University of Nueva Caceres
Teachers Alliance filed a petition for certification election with the
Department of Labor and Employment, Region V, Legaspi City, which was docketed as
Med-Arbitration Case No. R05-81-A89. Petitioner was named respondent therein. Before the case was heard, or on August 21, 1989, the respondent
University of Nueva Caceres Faculty and Employees Federation (hereinafter
referred to as FEDERATION) filed a petition for intervention and this was given
due course by Med-Arbiter Pedro M. Caño.

After conducting several pre-election conferences, Med-Arbiter
Pedro M. Caño issued an order dated December 14, 1989, with the following
dispositive portion:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, an order is hereby issued as
follows:

1. That a certification election be held within
twenty (20) days from receipt hereof;

2. That it be held in the premises of
respondent-employer duly supervised by the representation Officer(s) designated
by the office;

3. That only those in the herein attached list
of qualified voters shall be allowed to participate and vote during the
election;

4. That the contending parties shall be the
petitioner (UNC Concerned Teachers Alliance), the intervenor (UNC Faculty and
Employees Federation) and NO union.”^[1]

A copy of the above-written order of Med-Arbiter Caño was
received by petitioner on December 21, 1989.

Not satisfied therewith, petitioner decided to file an appeal and
sent its Memorandum on Appeal by registered mail on January 2, 1990. The FEDERATION for its part, also filed an
appeal.

On February 9, 1990, public respondent Secretary of Labor and
Employment Torres issued a joint resolution denying the appeals of both
petitioner and the FEDERATION. The
appeal of petitioner was denied for having been filed out of time.^[2]

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration alleging therein
that its appeal was correctly and timely filed on January 2, 1990, it being the
last day of the calendar period within which it could file its appeal.

As another pre-election conference was set to be called,
petitioner filed the instant petition stating that it had no other plain and
speedy remedy in the course of law.

From the facts of this case, it is obvious that respondent
Secretary Torres committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the appeal of
petitioner for HAVING BEEN FILED OUT OF TIME.

Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code
provides for the procedure by which a petition for certification election may
be filed. The period of appeal is
provided for in Section 9 of the same Rule, to wit:

“Sec. 9. Period of
appeal. – The appeal shall be filed within ten (10) calendar days from receipt
of the order by the appellant. Any
opposition thereto may be filed within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of
the appeal. The Regional Director shall
within five (5) calendar days forward the entire records of the case to the
Office of the Secretary.”^[3]

Section 28, Chapter 7, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987
on the other hand gives us the rule in cases where the day or last day for
doing an act required or permitted by law falls on a holiday, thus:

“Sec. 28 – Pretermission of Holiday – Where the day or the
last day, for doing any act required or permitted by law falls on a holiday,
the act may be done on the next succeeding business day.”^[4]

Applying the above-written rules to the case at bar, We hold that
the appeal of petitioner was not filed out of time. As earlier stated, petitioner received its copy of the order of
Med-Arbiter Caño on December 21, 1989. Counting ten days from petitioner’s receipt, the last day for filing the
appeal fell on December 31, a Sunday. Since
the following day was a legal holiday (New Year’s Day), petitioner could validly
file its appeal on January 2, the next business day and this was what
petitioner actually did.

In the case of SM Agri and General Machineries vs. NLRC,^[5]
this Court had the opportunity to rule on a case where the Legal Holiday
coincided with the 10th or last day to appeal. This Court held therein that where the 10th day of the 10-day period
fixed by law to appeal falls on a Sunday or a Legal Holiday, the appeal can be
filed on the next business day. In such
case, this Court continued, the supposedly last day to appeal will not be
deemed the last day because it happens to be a Sunday or Legal Holiday and
instead, the act can be done on the next business day following that Sunday or
Legal Holiday.^[6]

WHEREFORE and in view of the foregoing, the instant petition
is hereby granted. The resolution of
respondent Secretary Torres dated February 9, 1990 is ordered set aside as far
as petitioner University is concerned. Respondent Secretary Torres is also ordered to give due course to
petitioner’s appeal.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Page 18, Rollo.

^[2]
Page 57, Rollo.

^[3]
Section 9, Rule V, Book V, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.

^[4]
Reproduced from Section 31, Article VIII of the Revised Administrative Code.

^[5]
169 SCRA 20 (1989).

^[6]
Supra at 26.