Case Digest (G.R. No. 98108)
Facts:
The case involves Roman P. Aquino as the petitioner and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Roblett Industrial Construction, Inc. as the respondents. The events leading to this case began when Aquino filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Roblett Industrial Construction, Inc. before the Labor Arbiter, identified as NCR-2-396-87. Aquino alleged that he was removed from the payroll in January 1987 and had not received his salary. In response, Roblett claimed that Aquino had abandoned his work after being held accountable for advances amounting to P48,921.94. On May 30, 1990, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Aquino, declaring his dismissal illegal and ordering his reinstatement along with full back wages amounting to P80,820.00. The counsel for Roblett received the decision on June 13, 1990, and the deadline to appeal was set for June 23, 1990, which was a Saturday. However, the appeal was filed on June 25, 1990, two days after the deadline. Consequent...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 98108)
Facts:
- Complaint for Illegal Dismissal: Petitioner Roman P. Aquino filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against private respondent Roblett Industrial Construction, Inc., alleging he was removed from the payroll in January 1987 and not paid his salary.
- Private Respondent's Defense: Roblett Industrial Construction, Inc. claimed that Aquino abandoned his work after being held accountable for advances amounting to P48,921.94.
- Labor Arbiter's Decision: On May 30, 1990, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Aquino, declaring his dismissal illegal and ordering his reinstatement with full backwages amounting to P80,820.00.
- Timeliness of Appeal: Private respondent received the Labor Arbiter's decision on June 13, 1990. The last day to appeal was June 23, 1990 (a Saturday), but the appeal was filed on June 25, 1990 (Monday).
- Motion to Dismiss Appeal: Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on July 4, 1990, citing two grounds: (a) the appeal was filed beyond the reglementary period, and (b) private respondent failed to post the required appeal bond.
- NLRC's Initial Resolution: On February 18, 1991, the NLRC dismissed the appeal, agreeing with petitioner's arguments.
- NLRC's Reversal: On March 26, 1991, the NLRC reversed its earlier resolution, ruling that the appeal was timely filed and that the bond requirement was not yet in force when the appeal was filed.
- Petition for Certiorari: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.
Issue:
Procedural Issues:
- Whether a special civil action for certiorari can be availed of to review an interlocutory order.
- Whether the petition for certiorari was proper despite the failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC.
- Whether the petition for certiorari was proper when there was a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy (filing an answer to the memorandum on appeal).
Substantive Issues:
- Whether an appeal due on a Saturday can be filed on the following Monday.
- Whether the filing of an appeal bond was required under Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, before the adoption of the NLRC Rules implementing the law.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)