SILLIMAN UNIVERSITY, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND ISAGANI LEPITEN, ET. AL., RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari of the Resolution of the
National Labor Relations Commission, NLRC for brevity, dated February 15, 1990,
dismissing petitioner’s partial appeal from the Decision of the Labor Arbiter,
both of which petitioner seeks to annul, insofar as the award of moral damages
in the amount of P20,000.00 as well as for attorney’s fees in the amount
equivalent to ten (10%) of the total monetary award.

The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:

Private respondents are faculty members of the College of
Engineering of petitioner University. Sometime in 1981, negotiations started between the engineering faculty
members led by Engineer Isagani Lepiten and the School Administration regarding
a standardized salary system known as the Faculty Salary Administration Scheme,
FSAS for brevity.

The Engineering faculty of which private respondents are members
reacted negatively to the FSAS, claiming that it would operate against them.

On July 1982, Isagani Lepiten, then Officer In Charge of the
College of Engineering, wrote a letter to Dr. Angel Alcala, then Vice-President
for Academic Affairs of petitioner, proposing a special formula for the
engineering faculty.^[1]

On that same day Dr. Luz Auserjo, writing in behalf of Dr.
Alcala, agreed to the formula proposed by Lepiten, and such was made effective
beginning June 1, 1982, up to May 31, 1987.^[2]

On June 1, 1987, without the knowledge of Isagani Lepiten and the
other members of the group in that department, petitioner University
unilaterally repudiated the aforesaid scheme to the prejudice of the private
respondents.

A complaint for unfair labor practice, breach of contract and
damages was filed by the engineering faculty members led by Lepiten.

It is the position of petitioner University that since a new
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) took effect on June 1, 1987 between the
faculty union and respondent, said CBA governs the relationship between the
University and the faculty.

Thereafter, a Decision^[3] was
rendered by the Labor Arbiter, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing
considerations, judgment is hereby rendered, ordering respondent Silliman
University to pay the complainants their salaries in accordance with the salary
rate provided in Annex “A” and the differentials in salary based on
said Annex “A”; moral damages in the amount of P20,000.00 and
attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total award within ten (10) days from
receipt of this decision to be deposited in this office for appropriate
action. Other claims of the complainants
as well as respondent are denied for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.”

From the aforesaid decision, petitioner posed its partial appeal
before the National Labor Relations Commission, questioning the propriety of
the award of damages and attorney’s fees.

The National Labor Relations Commission however, affirmed^[4]
the assailed decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this appeal is DISMISSED
for lack of merit and the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.”^[5]

Hence, this petition.

We vote to dismiss the instant petition.

The appeal taken by herein petitioner before the NLRC is
time-barred, as it was filed beyond the reglementary period. It lapsed into finality.

This was noted by the National Labor Relations Commission in its
questioned Resolution but instead of dismissing the appeal, chose instead to
dispose of the case on its merits.^[6]

Petitioners received a copy of the Decision of the Labor Arbiter
on March 2, 1989^[7]
but the appeal from said Decision was filed March 15, 1989, well beyond the ten
(10) calendar days prescribed under Section 223 of the Labor Code, which reads:

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

As held repeatedly by this Court:

“The requirement that appeal must be perfected within the
period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional and failure to
perfect an appeal has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory”^[8]

Petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Teodoro Cortes, who is likewise the
Dean of the College of Law as well as the Vice-President on Academic Affairs
(VPAA), claims that service of the NLRC Decision was not complete upon receipt
by his office messenger and assistant clerk. It is only completed upon actual receipt by him of said decision, since
service was made by registered mail, and under Section 8 of Rule 13 of the
Revised Rules of Court –

“x x x . Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the
addressee; but if he fails to claim his mail from the post office within five
(5) days from the date of first notice of the postmaster, service shall take
effect at the expiration of such time.”

Such contention cannot be given merit. The Court has ruled:

“Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by
the attorney, his employee or messenger in his office.”^[9]

At any rate, records will show that Zosimo Lopez is a university
messenger whose duty among others is to go daily to the Dumaguete Post Office
to take delivery of all mail matters addressed to or at Silliman University
while Shirley Gepulani is a student office clerk or assistant of Atty. Cortes
working in his VPAA office. They
actually received a copy of the NLRC decision on March 2, 1989 as shown by a
certification^[10]
of the City Postmaster of the Dumaguete Post Office, which reads:

“This is to certify that, according to the records of this
Office, a certain registered mail no. 489 posted on February 27, 1989 by the
Department of Labor and Employment, Dumaguete City, and addressed to Atty.
Teodoro Cortes of Silliman University, Dumaguete City, was delivered to and
received by Mr. Zosimo R. Lopez, authorized agent of said University on March
2, 1989 and that per information furnished by said Zosimo Lopez, the same mail
was delivered by him to Shirley D. Gepulani, Student Assistant/VPAA/VPEP, also
on March 2, 1989.”

As held in the case of Enriquez vs. Bautista^[11]
–

“An attorney who does not stay in one place permanently owes
it to himself and to his clients to invariably adopt a system whereby he can be
sure of receiving promptly all judicial notices during his absence from his
address of record.”

Hence, there is no reason for the petitioner’s legal counsel to
deny receipt of the decision on March 2, 1989. To hold on to the view of petitioner’s legal counsel would result in
gross disregard of our rules on procedure.

This should not be allowed to happen. The rules should not bend to the uncertain wishes and dictates of
one party. They were promulgated for an
orderly administration of justice. To
do otherwise, would result in chaos and disorder.

Clearly, the National Labor Relations Commission had no
jurisdiction to act upon the appeal considering that the same was filed out of
time.

Inasmuch as the decision of the Labor Arbiter has long become
final and executory, We cannot but dismiss the instant petition. Likewise the award of damages and payment of
attorney’s fees, which is the subject of this appeal, has become final and
executory.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Melo, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 163.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 164.

^[3]
Rollo, pp. 23-31.

^[4]
Rollo, pp. 18-22.

^[5]
Id., at p. 22.

^[6]
Rollo, p. 18, Resolution, NLRC, promulgated February 15, 1990.

^[7]
Rollo, p. 52.

^[8]
Chong Guan Trading vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 81471, 172 SCRA 831, (1989).

^[9]
Mata vs. Rita Legarda, No. L-18941, 7 SCRA 227, (1963).

^[10]
Rollo, p. 52.

^[11]
No. L-1443, 79 Phil. 220, (1947).