NIACONSULT, INC., JOSE DEL ROSARIO, WILFREDO S. TIANGCO, AND CESAR DE GUZMAN, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND JESUS C. OCAMPO, RESPONDENTS.

NIAConsult versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by NIAConsult, Inc. and its officers against the National Labor Relations Commission and a dismissed employee, Jesus Ocampo. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to annul the Commission's order and resolution dismissing their appeal from the Labor Arbiter's decision on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the reglementary period. The case matters because it fixes a hard rule on when service by registered mail is deemed complete, and it teaches that the finality of a decision is a jurisdictional event that cannot be placed at the mercy of the party being served.

Procedural History

Jesus Ocampo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in his favor, finding that the abolition of his position was done in bad faith, and ordered reinstatement with backwages, honoraria, damages, and attorney's fees. The petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. The private respondent moved to dismiss the appeal, and after verification the Commission dismissed it as filed out of time. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari.

Facts

NIAConsult, Inc., a subsidiary of the National Irrigation Administration, employed Jesus Ocampo as Irrigators Development Chief. On July 4, 1990, the Board of Directors abolished his position effective August 31, 1990. On August 2, 1990, Ocampo filed a complaint alleging illegal dismissal.

On February 15, 1991, the Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, finding bad faith in the abolition and ordering reinstatement, backwages, honoraria, damages, and attorney's fees. The petitioners appealed on March 11, 1991, claiming their counsel received the decision on March 4, 1991. Ocampo later moved to dismiss, having discovered that the registry return card showed a different date, and that the decision had actually been delivered to and received at the NIA Records Section on February 25, 1991, as certified by the postmaster.

Counsel for the petitioners explained that he was on official field work from February 24 to 28, 1991, that he passed by the office on March 1 only to get his salary while on leave, and that he received the decision and signed the return card on March 4, 1991. The Commission found the appeal late and dismissed it. Hence this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioners' appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission was filed within the reglementary period, considering when service of the Labor Arbiter's decision by registered mail was complete.
• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal as filed out of time.

Applicable Provisions

Section 8 of Rule 13 provides:

Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or after five (5) days from the date he received the first notice of the postmaster, whichever date is earlier.

This provision fixes the reckoning point for the ten-day appeal period and defeats the petitioners' claim that receipt occurs only when the addressee signs the registry return card.

Section 2 of Rule 13 provides:

Whenever service is made upon a party who is represented by counsel, service shall be made upon the counsel of record.

This provision supports the ruling that delivery to the counsel's official address, the NIA building, was service on counsel and not on the party.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that service by registered mail is complete either upon actual receipt by the addressee or at the end of five days if he does not claim it within five days from the first notice of the postmaster. The purpose is to place the date of receipt of pleadings, judgments, and processes beyond the power of the party being served to determine at his pleasure. The Court rejected the petitioners' claim that under the NIA system the mail is considered received only when the addressee signs the return card, because that would make the record of receipt depend entirely on the date the addressee chooses to sign. The Court also noted that the counsel's official address was the NIA building, and that another counsel could have received the decision if he was in the province.

On the second issue, the Court held that since the decision was received at the NIA Records Division on February 25, 1991, the ten-day period expired on March 7, 1991. The appeal filed on March 11, 1991 was therefore late, and the Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing it. The Court added that it was the responsibility of the petitioners and their counsel to devise a system for the receipt of mail intended for them, and that the finality of a decision is a jurisdictional event which cannot be made to depend on the convenience of a party.

Doctrine

Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee or at the end of five days from the first notice of the postmaster, whichever is earlier. The date of receipt cannot be made to depend on the addressee's convenience in signing the registry return card. When a party is represented by counsel, service must be made on counsel at his official address, and it is the party's and counsel's responsibility to devise a system for receiving mail. The finality of a decision is a jurisdictional event.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the Commission's dismissal of the appeal as filed out of time was upheld.

Remember This

Memorize the line that service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt or after five days from the first notice of the postmaster, and that finality of a decision is a jurisdictional event. Examiners use this case to test reckoning of the appeal period and the rule that service on counsel at his official address binds the party.