NUEVA ECIJA III ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. THIRD DIVISION, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. CRESENCIO RAMOS (IN HIS CAPACITY AS LABOR ARBITER,…

This petition for certiorari, is directed against the
resolution of the respondent National Labor Relations Commission dated July 28,
1989, which lifted the writ of injunction issued by the National Labor
Relations Commission en banc, and dismissed the appeal filed by
the petitioner. Petitioner herein,
likewise, seeks to set aside the Order of the respondent NLRC dated August 3,
1989, directing the Special Disbursing Officer, Regional Office No. 3 of the
Department of Labor and Employment, to release in favor of the private
respondents the sum of P204,880 representing the judgment for backwages, cost
of living allowances, and damage awarded by the Labor Arbiter.

On May 8, 1987, a complaint for illegal dismissal, and for
actual, moral, and exemplary damages, was filed by the Central Luzon Labor
Congress (CLLC-LCP), in behalf of its members, Cenon Diaz, Celestino Bagsic,
Saturnino Binuya, and Florida Manubay, against the Nueva Ecija III Electric
Cooperative, Inc. and its President, Dr. Manuel Padilla.

The petitioner, through counsel, averred that the cause of the
dismissal was a complaint
filed on February 24, 1986 by some concerned consumers and officers of the
Nueva Ecija Electric Cooperative, Inc. III Employees Union regarding: (1) the illegal encashment of mercantile
check by Manubay and Binuya; and (2) the illegal withdrawal of forty (40) reels
of ASR #410 wires. In the NEECO III,
the National Electrification Administration conducted an investigation and on
the basis of its findings, it charged Binuya and Manubay with illegal
encashment of NEECO III fire loss claim check amounting to P227,569.12. Diaz and Bagsic were charged for illegal
withdrawal of forty (40) reels of ASR #410 wires. The respondents were required to submit written explanations
within 72 hours.

Binuya and Manubay explained that the encashing of the fire loss
claim check of the NEECO III was done upon orders of the General Manager, and
that it did not redound to their personal benefit but to the benefit of the cooperative.

Diaz and Bagsic on the other hand, alleged that the sale of the
cooperative scrap materials was made by virtue of a Board Resolution to that
effect and the release of the forty (40) reels of ASR #410 was duly supported
by a requisition voucher and material charge tickets with the approval of the
General Manager.

The Investigation Committee, however, found the private
respondents guilty as charged and recommended the termination of their
services. On April 14, 1987, they were
dismissed from the service.

On June 30, 1988, the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment setting
aside the findings and conclusions of the Investigation Committee. The Labor Arbiter was convinced that the
check was encashed upon the order of the General Manager, and that its
encashment did not redound to the personal benefit of the private
respondents. He found the dismissal of
Diaz and Bagsic unjustified.

The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter’s decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring respondents
Nueva Ecija Electric Cooperative, Inc., guilty of Illegal Dismissal. Respondents are ordered to reinstate complainants to their
former positions and to pay complainants the following sums of money for
backwages, cost of living
allowance and damages, etc.:

Cenon Diaz – Chief Engineer

P25,500.00 – backwages (P1,700
x 15 mos. 4/15/87 – 7/15/88)

8,550.00 – cost of living allowance (same period)

1,700.00 – 13th month pay, 1987

15,000.00 – moral damages

15,000.00 – exemplary damages

P65,750.00 Total

Saturnino Binuya – OIC, Sta. Rosa

P24,750.00 – backwages (P1,650 x
15 mos. 4/15/87 – 7/15/88)

8,550.00 – cost of living allowance (same period)

1,650.00 – 13th month

10,000.00 – moral damages

10,000.00 – exemplary damages

P54,950.00 Total

Celestino Bagsic – Chief Warehouseman

P22,500.00 – backwages (P1,500
x 15 mos. 4/15/87 – 7/15/88)

8,550.00 – cost of living allowance (same period)

1,500.00 – 13th month pay

7,500.00 – moral damages

7,500.00 – exemplary damages

P47,550.00 Total

Florida Manubay – Teller

P16,950.00 – backwages (P1,130
x 15 mos. 4/15/87 – 7/15/88)

8,550.00 – cost of living allowance (same period)

1,130.00 – 13th month pay

5,000.00 – moral damages

5,000.00 – exemplary damages

P36,630.00 Total

or a grand total of Two
Hundred Four Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Pesos (P204,880.00).”
(pp. 73-74, Rollo.)

NEECO appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. On August 3, 1988, the NLRC rendered
judgment dismissing the appeal for tardiness. It held that the records showed that the decision of the Labor Arbiter
was received by the petitioner on July 1, 1988, but the appeal was filed only
on July 16, 1988. Moreover, petitioner
allegedly paid the appeal fee only on July 20, 1988. Since under Section 1(a) of Rule VIII of the Commission, appeal
shall be made within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of notice of the
decision, accompanied by proof of payment of the required appeal fee,
petitioner’s appeal was filed out of time. The decision had already become final and executory.

By this petition for certiorari, NEECO seeks a review of that ruling of the
NLRC. It alleges that the NLRC gravely
abused its discretion:

1. in finding that
petitioner’s appeal was late although the registry receipt, the certification
issued by the Bureau of Post upon request of the Labor Arbiter and the stamp
appearing on the face of the envelope of the decision show that it was mailed
on July 11, 1988 (not on July 1, 1988), hence, the notice of appeal filed on
July 16, 1988 was filed within the mandatory ten (10) day period to perfect an
appeal;

2. in refusing to consider
the fact that the delay in the payment of the docket fee was caused by the
change of petitioner’s counsel and by the fact that petitioner passed under the
control of the NEA only in May, 1988. In any event, delay in paying the docket fee is riot a ground for the
dismissal of the appeal;

3. in ordering the release
of the sum of P204,880.00 to the private respondents five (5) days after it
promulgated the resolution dismissing the appeal and before petitioner received
a copy of said resolution;

4. in ordering the
reinstatement of employees who had committed serious crimes against the
petitioner;

5. in not finding that
breach of trust and fraud warrant dismissal of the offending employees;

6. in not giving faith and
credit to the findings of the National Electrification Administration;

7. in affirming the Labor
Arbiter’s order for the immediate implementation of the writ of execution
without awaiting the NLRC’s resolution of the petitioner’s appeal; and

8. in not annulling the
levy on execution and subsequent auction sale conducted by the respondent
sheriff Cruz in defiance of the injunction issued by the NLRC en banc.

Petitioner also prays for a writ of prohibition or temporary
restraining order to enjoin the public respondents from implementing the
assailed decision and order.

The Solicitor General asked to be excused from filing a comment
for the NLRC because he is unable to defend its decision.

There is merit in the petitioner’s contention that the NLRC
gravely abused its discretion when it dismissed its appeal for, as a matter of
fact, that appeal was not late. The
records show that petitioner received the Labor Arbiter’s decision on July 1,
1988, and filed its appeal on July 11, 1988 – the tenth day of the appeal
period. The NLRC’s finding that
petitioner mailed its appeal on July 16, 1988 only was due apparently to the
fact that two dates: July 11, 1988 and
July 16, 1988 – are stamped on the envelope containing the notice of
appeal. Because of the conflicting
dates stamped on the envelope, the Labor Arbiter himself requested the
Postmaster on July 22, 1988 to issue a certification as to the exact date when
the notice of appeal was mailed. On
July 25, 1988, the Postmaster certified that the envelope was mailed on July
11, 1988, but because it was not included among the letters
dispatched on that day, for the messenger had already left, so it was
dispatched on July 16, 1988, the other date appearing on the envelope.

In view of the rule that when “pleadings, appearances,
motions, notices, orders and other papers are filed with the court by
registered mail, the date of mailing is considered
the date of filing,” (San Miguel Corporation
vs. NLRC, 180 SCRA 281), we hold that the petitioner’s appeal which was mailed
on July 11, 1988, as certified by the Postmaster, was filed on time. The fact that the envelope was tardily
dispatched by the Post Office on July 15, 1988 (or July 16, 1988) is of no consequence.

Delay in paying the appeal fee (it was paid only on July 20,
1988) was not a ground for the dismissal of the appeal. We ruled in Aspacio vs. Inciong,
161 SCRA 180, 181, thus:

“Under Section II, Rule XIII, Book V of the Rules and
Regulations Implementing the Labor Code, ‘any party aggrieved by the decision
of the Commission may appeal such decision to the Secretary of Labor within ten
(10) working days from receipt thereof x x x.’ Section 12 thereof also provides
that ‘the appeal must be filed with the Commission within ten (10) working days
from receipt of the decision, copy furnished the appellee, who shall in turn
file his answer within ten (10) working days from receipt of the appeal.’ There
is no provision that payment of appeal fee is required to perfect the
appeal.”

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is
GRANTED. The respondent, National Labor
Relations Commission, is hereby ordered to give due course to petitioner’s
appeal and resolve the same on the merits.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Medialdea, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.