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...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Roman P. Aquino, the petitioner, initiated a complaint for illegal dismissal against Roblett Industrial Construction, Inc. after being removed from the payroll in January 1987 and allegedly not receiving his salary.
• The Labor Arbiter found in favor of Aquino, declaring his dismissal illegal and ordering his reinstatement with three-year backwages amounting to P80,820.00.

Proceedings in the Labor Tribunal

• On May 30, 1990, the Labor Arbiter rendered the decision awarding Aquino backwages and reinstatement.
• The decision was served to private respondent’s counsel on June 13, 1990, setting the appeal deadline on June 23, 1990.

Filing of the Appeal and Subsequent Motions

• Private respondent’s counsel filed the appeal on June 25, 1990, two days after the designated Saturday deadline.
• On July 4, 1990, petitioner Aquino filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and for the issuance of a writ of execution, on two primary grounds:
• The appeal had been filed beyond the prescribed reglementary period.
• Private respondent failed to post the required surety or cash bond as mandated by Section 223 of the Labor Code (amended by R.A. No. 6715).

Actions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)

• The NLRC initially dismissed the appeal in its February 18, 1991 Resolution, emphasizing two points:
• The appeal was untimely, given the Saturday deadline.
• The absence of the mandatory appeal bond rendered the appeal imperfect.
• On March 26, 1991, upon private respondent’s motion, the NLRC set aside its prior dismissal, based on:
• The contention that the SATURDAY filing issue was resolved by the fact that NLRC offices were closed on Saturdays, making the filing on Monday (July 25, 1990) timely.
• The argument that the implementing rules on the appeal bond, which were issued by the NLRC only later, were not applicable at the time of the filing.

Petition for Certiorari and Further Developments

• On April 22, 1990, petitioner Aquino filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.
• The petition challenged two sets of issues:
• Procedural issues regarding the appropriateness of reviewing an interlocutory order without a prior motion for reconsideration.
• Substantive issues on the timeliness of filing the memorandum of appeal (given the Saturday deadline) and the applicability of the requirement to post a bond under Article 223 of the Labor Code.

Issue:

Procedural Issues

• Whether a petition for certiorari is appropriate to review an interlocutory order alleged to be tainted by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
• Whether the petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC can be excused in instances where the order is a patent nullity.
• Whether there exists a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in filing an answer to the memorandum on appeal, notwithstanding the prior interlocutory order.

Substantive Issues

• Whether an appeal whose reglementary deadline (ten calendar days from receipt) falls on a Saturday, when the NLRC office is closed, can be considered timely if filed on the next working day.
• Whether the posting of a cash or surety bond, as required under Article 223 of the Labor Code (amended by R.A. No. 6715), was mandatory for perfecting the appeal even in the absence of an immediately effective administrative implementing rule.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)