Case Digest (G.R. No. 159358)
Facts:
Eureka Personnel & Management Services, Inc. v. Eduardo Valencia, G.R. No. 159358, July 15, 2009, the Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.Eureka Personnel & Management Services, Inc. (petitioner) engaged Eduardo Valencia (respondent) as an electrical engineer under a one‑year contract with a three‑month probationary period and deployed him to Saudi Arabia on October 17, 1998. Valencia alleged he was repatriated on January 6, 1999 after complaining about nonpayment of salary and allowances; Eureka maintains Valencia was terminated for unsatisfactory performance during probation. Upon return to the Philippines, Valencia filed complaints with the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration and later with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
After hearing, the labor arbiter rendered a decision dated October 17, 1999, awarding Valencia unpaid salary and allowances and three months’ salary for unexpired portion of the contract. Eureka contends it received the labor arbiter’s decision on November 22, 1999 and filed a notice of appeal with the NLRC on December 2, 1999; the NLRC found service was on November 21, 1999 as shown by a registry return card in its records and dismissed Eureka’s appeal as filed out of time.
Eureka moved for reconsideration before the NLRC and later submitted, by supplemental motion dated May 12, 2000, a certification from the Postmaster of Malate stating the NLRC’s registered letter was delivered on November 22, 1999. The NLRC denied reconsideration on August 31, 2000. Eureka sought relief from the Court of Appeals by a petition under Rule 65, which the CA denied in a March 28, 2003 decision and denied reconsideration in an August 7, 2003 resolution, holding the registry return card in the NLRC record was sufficient proof of date of receipt and that the NLRC properly dismissed the appeal as late.
On September 10, 2003 Eureka filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, arguing the postmaster’s certification proved timely receipt of the labor arbiter’s decision and that the registry return card should not prevail where the postmaster’s certification exists; Valencia countered that the certification was unsealed, not under oath, untimely presented, and that Eureka also failed to post the correct amount of bond to perfect appeal.
Issues:
- Should the petition be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 45 (Sections 4 and 5) by not attaching the material postmaster’s certification relied upon to support the petition?
- Did the NLRC and the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Eureka’s appeal as filed out of time, where the registry return card in the NLRC record shows November 21, 1999 as date of receipt and the postmaster’s certification asserts delivery on November 22, 1999?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)