CARNATION PHILIPPINES EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION-FFW, PETITIONER, VS. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND CARNATION PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner Carnation Philippines Employees Labor Union – FFW
filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labor
and Employment against private respondent Carnation Philippines, Inc. for
alleged violation of Section 7, Rule 1, Book III of the Rules Implementing Article
85 of the New Labor Code relating to the obligation of every employer to give
his employees a 60-minute time-off period for their regular
meals.

On September
8, 1980, Labor
Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano
rendered a decision “dismissing the complaint with prejudice for lack of
merit.”

Petitioner appealed the
decision to the National Labor Relations Commission which, in a resolution
dated September 30, 1981, dismissed the appeal on the ground that “on the
face of the subject appeal, it is manifestly
evident that appellant failed to furnish a copy of its appeal on the appellee which is a fatal infirmity. Under Article 223 of the Labor Code, Section 9,
Rule XIII, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code and Section 3, Rule
IX of the NLRC Rules, appellant is mandated to furnish on the appellee a copy of its appeal.”

The only question
presented before Us for resolution is whether
or not respondent NLRC committed
a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal on the ground aforestated.

We find merit in this
petition considering that the same question had been presented and resolved by
this Court in the Case of J. D. Magpayo Customs
Brokerage Corp. vs. NLRC, 118 SCRA 645, when We ruled that –

“x x x failure
to give a copy of the appeal to the adverse party was a mere formal lapse, an
excusable neglect. Time and again We have acted on
petitions to review decisions of the
Court of Appeals even in the absence of proof of service of a copy
thereof to the Court of Appeals as required by Section 1 of Rule 45, Rules of
Court. We act on the petitions and simply required the petitioners to comply
with the rule.

“Jurisprudential support is not absent to sustain Our action. In Estrada vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. 57735, March 19, 1982,
112 SCRA 688, this Court set aside the order of the NLRC which dismissed an
appeal on the sole ground that the appellant had not furnished the appellee a memorandum of appeal contrary to the
requirements of Article 223 of the New Labor Code and Section 9, Rule XIII of its Implementing Rules
and Regulations.”

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is granted and respondent
National Labor Relations Commission is hereby ORDERED to give due course to
petitioner’s appeal.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Acting Chairman), Abad Santos, Plana, and Escolin, JJ., concur.