RUBEN YAMILAO, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MATRIX CORPORATE SECURITY AND GENERAL SERVICES, INC., RESPONDENTS.

Yamilao versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Court, brought by Ruben Yamilao against the National Labor Relations Commission and Matrix Corporate Security and General Services, Incorporated. Yamilao asks the Supreme Court to set aside the Commission's resolutions dismissing his appeal from a labor arbiter's decision for having been filed out of time. The case matters because it is a clean teaching vehicle on two points every labor reviewee must hold: the right of appeal is a mere statutory privilege that must be exercised in the manner and within the period fixed by law, and the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, so that failure to perfect it renders the questioned decision final and executory and strips the appellate body of power to alter it.

Procedural History

The matter began with a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims filed by Yamilao against Matrix Corporate Security and General Services, Incorporated. Labor Arbiter Elias H. Salinas rendered a decision dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal for lack of merit, but directing the complainant to report for work and the agency to accept him back and reinstate him to his former position as security guard, without back wages, and ordering payment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay for the year 1999.

Yamilao later filed a second complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims. Labor Arbiter Ernesto S. Dinopol dismissed the second complaint, finding that the complainant had not shown the efforts that would qualify him for redeployment and that the respondent's dismissal of him by letter was justified. Yamilao then filed a notice of appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission, which dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time and denied his motion for reconsideration. From those resolutions, Yamilao came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Facts

On May 24, 1999, Yamilao filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of separation pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and attorney's fees against Matrix Corporate Security and General Services, Incorporated. He alleged that he had been employed as its security officer on January 24, 1997; that his last assigned post was at SIM'S Motolite Battery; that on November 16, 1998 he was relieved from that duty because of the cost cutting procedure implemented by SIM'S Motolite Battery; that from that date he kept following up his assignment with the agency; and that when he was not given an assignment for more than six months, he construed this as constructive dismissal.

On June 5, 2001, Labor Arbiter Salinas rendered a decision finding that Yamilao was not illegally dismissed and ordering instead his reinstatement, without back wages, plus payment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay for the year 1999. On January 16, 2003, Yamilao filed a second complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims. He alleged that pursuant to the Salinas decision he reported back to work, but the agency refused to reinstate him; that in December 2001 he received a letter dated December 7, 2001 informing him that he had to update his clearances and requirements for possible assignment; and that on January 8, 2002 he received a letter of termination for continued non-compliance with that directive.

The agency argued that the second complaint was barred by the prior judgment of June 5, 2001, that his failure and refusal to report back and to submit renewed and updated requirements was a clear case of abandonment, and that the monetary claims awarded in the June 5, 2001 decision had already prescribed. Labor Arbiter Dinopol dismissed the second complaint on November 7, 2003, finding that the certificate of re-training submitted did not prove submission of the other requirements on or before December 31, 2001, and that the dismissal by the letter of January 8 was justified. Yamilao's counsel received that decision on January 5, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on March 12, 2004, more than two months later.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner was illegally dismissed.
• Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to a liberal interpretation of the Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission provides:

SECTION 4. REQUISITES FOR PERFECTION OF APPEAL. a) The appeal shall be filed within the reglementary period (ten calendar days) as provided in Section 1 of this Rule xxx with proof of xxx the posting of a cash or surety bond xxx. A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting appeal.

This is the provision the Court applies: the appeal must be filed within the ten calendar day reglementary period, and a mere notice of appeal without compliance with the other requisites does not stop the running of the period for perfecting the appeal.

Ruling

On the threshold matter of the scope of review, the Court held that in the review of a National Labor Relations Commission decision through a special civil action for certiorari, resolution is confined only to issues of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion on the part of the labor tribunal. The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction, including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; it does not include correction of the Commission's evaluation of the evidence or of its factual findings.

On the first issue, the Court found no want or excess of jurisdiction, and no grave abuse of discretion, in the dismissal of the appeal for being filed out of time. It held that the right of appeal is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance with, the provisions of the law. A party litigant has to observe the provisions of the law in perfecting his appeal; otherwise the appeal will be considered a mere scrap of paper. Perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional, and failure to do so renders the questioned decision final and executory and deprives the appellate body of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment, much less to entertain the appeal. Non-compliance with such legal requirements is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.

On the second issue, the plea for liberal interpretation did not move the Court. The Commission had noted that counsel received the decision on January 5, 2004, so that the ten calendar day period ran until January 15, 2004, and the appeal was filed on March 12, 2004, more than two months after receipt. The Court agreed that the dismissal of the petition was in accord with law and jurisprudence. Because the appeal was never perfected, the assailed resolution of January 24, 2005 became final and executory, and once a judgment has become final and executory it can no longer be disturbed except only for the correction of clerical errors, or where supervening events render its execution impossible or unjust, in which case the interested party may ask the court to modify the judgment to harmonize it with justice and the facts. For the non-perfection of the appeal, the Court could no longer decide the other issue raised by the petitioner, namely, whether he was illegally dismissed.

Doctrine

First, the right of appeal is a mere statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance with, the provisions of the law. Second, perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional; failure to perfect it renders the questioned decision final and executory and deprives the appellate body of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment, much less to entertain the appeal. Third, under Section 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission, the appeal must be filed within the ten calendar day reglementary period, and a mere notice of appeal without compliance with the other requisites does not stop the running of the period for perfecting the appeal. Fourth, in a special civil action for certiorari against a National Labor Relations Commission decision, review is confined to issues of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion; the Court does not correct the Commission's evaluation of the evidence or its factual findings. Fifth, once a judgment has become final and executory, it can no longer be disturbed except for the correction of clerical errors, or where supervening events render its execution impossible or unjust.

Disposition

The petition was denied due course and dismissed, with no costs; the petitioner lost, and the resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission dismissing his appeal for being filed out of time stood.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect it renders the decision final and executory. Examiners use this case to test the ten calendar day appeal period under the Commission's rules, the limits of certiorari review of labor tribunal findings, and whether indigency or a plea for liberal construction can excuse a belated appeal.