PEDRO B. NARAG, PETITIONER, VS. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND AIRBORNE SECURITY SERVICES, INC., RESPONDENTS.

Narag versus Airborne Security Services

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Pedro Narag against the National Labor Relations Commission and his former employer, Airborne Security Services, Incorporated. Narag asks the Supreme Court to set aside the Commission's decision, which modified the labor arbiter's award by deleting his backwages. The case matters because it settles two things every labor lawyer must know: whether the ten-day appeal period in labor cases counts calendar days or working days, and when a worker placed "under headquarters disposition" is in truth constructively dismissed.

Procedural History

Narag filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and other labor claims before the National Labor Relations Commission, National Capital Region. Labor Arbiter Raymundo Valenzuela heard the case and ruled in Narag's favor, finding that he had been constructively dismissed without a valid cause. The arbiter ordered his reinstatement and the payment of one year of backwages, and directed reimbursement of his cash deposit should he forego reinstatement. Airborne Security Services filed a partial appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission, Third Division. The Commission reversed the finding of dismissal, held that Narag had merely been directed to report to the central office and had opted not to work, and ordered reinstatement but without backwages. Narag then filed this petition for review before the Supreme Court, which gave the petition due course.

Facts

Pedro Narag worked for Airborne Security Services, a licensed security agency, in three separate periods, the last beginning in November 1980. In that last period he was assigned as security-in-charge at the agency's client, Union Glass and Container Corporation, and was paid a monthly compensation of 1,200 pesos inclusive of allowances.

On July 14, 1982, the client's personnel manager asked the agency to relieve Narag. The next day, agency officials confronted him about the incident. Narag explained that a visitor named Mrs. Edar had waited at the gate for her husband, that his guards twice called the husband's supervisor, and that Mr. Edar later shouted at the guards and complained to the personnel manager, Mr. Pineda, who in turn shouted at Narag by telephone. The officials merely laughed and told him to report to the central office the following day, without explaining why.

On July 16, 1982, Narag received a memorandum informing him that he was relieved immediately and placed under headquarters disposition. He continued reporting for duty at the central office from July 16 to July 31, 1982, but was given no assignment. On July 30, 1982, the accounting department told him he had no salary because his services were already terminated, and the director of operations confirmed that he had been laid off. Narag then filed his complaint.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the employer's appeal, which was filed one day beyond the ten-day reglementary period.
• Whether or not the ten-day period to appeal a labor arbiter's decision is counted in calendar days or in working days.
• Whether or not Narag was illegally dismissed by the private respondent.

Applicable Provisions

Article 223 of the Labor Code, as then in force, provides:

Article 223. Appeal. Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter or compulsory arbitrators are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both of the parties within ten (10) days from receipt of such awards, orders, or decisions.

This provision fixes the ten-day period whose computation is the heart of the first two issues, and its expiry is what rendered the arbiter's decision final and executory.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court sustained the petitioner. The employer received the arbiter's decision on April 30, 1984, and filed its appeal on May 11, 1984. Counting calendar days, the ten-day period ended on May 10, 1984, a Thursday, so the appeal was filed one day late. Perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect it renders the judgment final and executory.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the employer's claim that the period means ten working days. It relied on its earlier ruling in Vir-Jen Shipping and Marine Services versus the National Labor Relations Commission, which held that the shortened period of ten days fixed by Article 223 contemplates calendar days and not working days. The Court explained that the law commands that labor cases be promptly disposed of, precisely in the interest of labor, since long appeal periods can be taken advantage of more by management than by labor.

On the third issue, the Court held that a careful review of the records showed Narag was effectively and illegally dismissed. After he was allegedly relieved only temporarily, he continued to report for duty but was never given any assignment, and when he asked for his salary he was told he had already been laid off. The labor arbiter's decision was therefore supported by the evidence and the applicable law.

Doctrine

The ten-day period to appeal a labor arbiter's decision to the National Labor Relations Commission under Article 223 of the Labor Code is counted in calendar days, not working days. Perfection of an appeal within that period is mandatory and jurisdictional; a late appeal leaves the arbiter's decision final and executory, and the Commission acquires no jurisdiction to modify it. And a worker who is relieved from his post, told to report to headquarters, given no assignment, and then informed he has been laid off is constructively dismissed, even if the employer calls the relief temporary.

Disposition

The Court reversed and set aside the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission and affirmed the labor arbiter's decision ordering Narag's reinstatement with one year of backwages, and reimbursement of his 240-peso cash deposit should he forego reinstatement.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the ten-day appeal period in labor cases is counted in calendar days, and a late appeal is jurisdictional, leaving the arbiter's decision final and executory. Examiners use this case to test computation of the appeal period under Article 223 and to illustrate constructive dismissal through the device of placing an employee under headquarters disposition without work or wages.