G.R. No. 163891 - Charter Chemical and Coating Corp. vs. Tan

This case is a petition for review of the Court of Appeals’ 9 March 2004 Decision and the 4 June 2004 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 72086.
The petition challenges the Court of Appeals’ finding that the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) acted with grave abuse of discretion by reversing its earlier dismissal and giving due course to petitioner Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation’s late-filed appeal.

Respondents Herbert Tan and Amalia Sonsing were employed by petitioner at its Davao branch as officer-in-charge and office secretary, respectively.
On 4 March 2000, both respondents were placed under preventive suspension due to their failure to satisfactorily explain the discrepancies in the stock inventory at the Davao depot warehouse and to clarify alleged dishonesty in punching their time cards.
On 24 March 2000, petitioner informed the respondents of their termination from service.

On 7 June 2000, respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against petitioner.
Labor Arbiter Nicolas S. Sayson ruled in favor of the respondents on 18 January 2001, declaring their dismissal illegal.
The Labor Arbiter’s decision awarded separation pay, backwages, 13th month pay, damages, and attorney's fees to the respondents, amounting to a total award of ₱560,560.00.
Petitioner received a copy of this decision on 7 February 2001.

Petitioner filed its notice of appeal on 16 February 2001 through Luzon Brokerage Corporation (LBC), with the NLRC receiving it on 26 February 2001.
In an 11 October 2001 Resolution, the NLRC dismissed petitioner’s appeal on the ground that it was filed beyond the mandatory 10-day reglementary period prescribed by Article 223 of the Labor Code.
Petitioner later filed a motion for reconsideration; in its 6 February 2002 Resolution, the NLRC reversed its earlier dismissal and admitted the appeal, citing unforeseen circumstances such as its office transfer and the Department of Labor and Employment’s (DOLE) refusal to accept the notice when delivered by LBC.
The NLRC rationalized that these supervening events constituted excusable negligence, justifying the relaxation of the strict filing period.

After the NLRC’s reversal and subsequent dismissal of respondents’ complaint for illegal dismissal, respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
On 9 March 2004, the Court of Appeals granted the respondents’ petition and ruled that the NLRC had committed grave abuse of discretion in accepting petitioner’s belated appeal.
Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals, which was denied on 4 June 2004, leading to the present petition for review.

Whether the Court of Appeals’ ruling—that the NLRC abused its discretion by reversing its dismissal of petitioner’s late-filed appeal—contravenes existing law and jurisprudence.
Whether the petitioner’s efforts (through LBC’s delivery of the notice of appeal) justify a relaxation of the strict 10-day reglementary period mandated by Article 223 of the Labor Code, particularly when considering that the actual receipt date by the NLRC fell well beyond the prescribed period.