BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB, (PHILS.), INC. PETITIONER, VS. ROGELIO T. VILORIA, RESPONDENT.

Bristol Myers Squibb versus Viloria

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Bristol Myers Squibb, Philippines, against its former Territory Manager, Rogelio Viloria, arising from a labor dispute over the timeliness of an appeal. Viloria was dismissed for loss of trust and confidence, and when the Labor Arbiter ruled against him, he filed his appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission several days late, using a motion for extension that the rules expressly prohibit. The case matters because it draws the line between a court's power to relax procedural rules in the interest of justice and the mandatory, jurisdictional character of the period to perfect an appeal from a Labor Arbiter's decision.

Procedural History

Viloria filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter, who dismissed it for lack of merit. Viloria received a copy of that decision on May 26, 1999. Instead of filing his appeal within the ten-day period, he filed a motion for extension of time on June 8, 1999, and then filed his memorandum of appeal on June 9, 1999. Bristol Myers moved to dismiss the appeal as filed out of time. The National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the appeal for failure to perfect it within the reglementary period, and denied Viloria's motion for reconsideration.

Viloria then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals, which initially dismissed the petition for lack of merit. On reconsideration, however, the Court of Appeals reversed itself, citing Article 221 of the Labor Code, and directed the National Labor Relations Commission to give due course to the belated appeal. Bristol Myers's motion for reconsideration was denied, so it elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Rogelio Viloria was hired by Mead Johnson Philippines as a medical representative-trainee and became a regular Territory Manager. After a merger, he became Territory Manager of the Oncology Business Unit of Bristol Myers Squibb. In 1997, the company noticed a drastic change in his work attitude and a sudden deterioration in his performance.

On November 10, 1997, his manager issued a memorandum requiring him to explain, within forty-eight hours, a long list of failures: missed appointments with doctors, unanswered pages, late arrivals at meetings, discrepancies in his call reports, and failure to submit required documents. Viloria submitted explanations that the company found unsatisfactory. He then applied for a leave of absence from November 21 to December 31, 1997, which was disapproved, yet he absented himself anyway, forcing the company to assign another employee to his duties.

After being directed to explain his unauthorized absence and to attend a conference, Viloria instead tendered his resignation, citing personal reasons, effective January 15, 1998. The company nonetheless terminated his employment on December 24, 1997 for violation of its Code of Ethics, falsification of Medicheck reports, and false statements. Viloria then sued for illegal dismissal.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to Viloria's petition for certiorari and prohibition despite its failure to allege a prima facie basis for the writs.
• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Viloria's appeal for having been filed beyond the reglementary period.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly relaxed the procedural rules in the interest of justice.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule VI of the Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission provides:

Decisions, resolutions 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 of such decisions, resolutions or orders of the Labor Arbiter and in case of a decision of the Regional Director within five (5) calendar days from receipt of such decision, resolutions, or orders. If the 10th or 5th day, as the case may be, falls on a Saturday, Sunday or a holiday, the last day to perfect the appeal shall be the next working day.

This fixes the ten-day period within which Viloria had to perfect his appeal, counted from his receipt of the Labor Arbiter's decision.

Section 4 of the same Rule provides:

A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal.

This confirms that the filing of an incomplete or prohibited pleading does not toll the period, which is fatal to Viloria's cause.

Section 7 of the same Rule provides:

No motion or request for extension of period within which to perfect an appeal shall be allowed.

This makes Viloria's motion for extension a prohibited pleading that could not preserve his right to appeal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that a petition for certiorari must set out, plainly and distinctly, the facts essential to establish a right to the writ, including a prima facie showing that the tribunal acted with grave abuse of discretion and that there is no appeal or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Viloria alleged none of these. He did not even claim that the Labor Arbiter abused his discretion, and in fact he had appealed that decision to the Commission. His proper remedy, if he wished to restrain the Labor Arbiter's decision, was to pray for a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction, not to nullify the decision by certiorari.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Viloria received the decision on May 26, 1999, giving him until June 5, 1999, which fell on a Saturday, so that the last day became June 7, 1999. Instead of perfecting his appeal by then, he filed a prohibited motion for extension on June 8, 1999, and his memorandum of appeal only on June 9, 1999. He also failed to submit proof of payment of the appeal fee and the required certificate of non-forum shopping within the period.

On the third issue, the Court held that while it has relaxed the period to appeal in meritorious cases, the appellant must establish a concrete, cogent and valid reason for his failure to comply. Here there was none. The Court reviewed the records, including Viloria's four-page memorandum of appeal, and found it to be a mere rehash of his position paper already resolved by the Labor Arbiter. A decision not appealed within the period becomes final and executory and can no longer be modified or reversed.

Doctrine

The period to perfect an appeal from a Labor Arbiter's decision is mandatory and jurisdictional; a decision not appealed within the ten-day period becomes final and executory. A motion for extension of the period to appeal is a prohibited pleading that does not toll the period, and the filing of an incomplete appeal does not stop the running of the period. Certiorari will not lie where the petitioner fails to allege and show grave abuse of discretion and the absence of a plain, speedy and adequate remedy. The relaxation of procedural rules is the exception, not the rule, and requires a concrete, cogent and valid explanation for the delay.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted Bristol Myers's petition, set aside the Court of Appeals' resolutions, and reinstated the dismissal of Viloria's appeal, leaving the Labor Arbiter's decision final and executory.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the ten-day period to appeal from a Labor Arbiter's decision is mandatory and jurisdictional, and a motion for extension is a prohibited pleading. Examiners use this case to test whether you know that procedural liberality is a narrow exception requiring a cogent explanation, and that certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal.