G.R. No. 60050 - Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Private respondent Rodolfo Yanguas began his employment with Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) on January 22, 1951.
He steadily rose in rank and was promoted to Cable Foreman SJG-2 in July 1972.

On September 20, 1980, Yanguas was informed of his impending preventive suspension set to take effect on October 1, 1980, pending clearance from the Ministry of Labor and Employment.
The suspension and eventual dismissal were based on accusations of incompetence and inefficiency in the performance of his supervisory duties.
Specifically, PLDT accused him of negligence related to his oversight of an employee, Vicente Rebong, who was involved in the theft of company materials and equipment.
PLDT contended that instead of correcting Rebong’s misconduct, Yanguas had endorsed Rebong’s attendance records falsely, effectively collaborating in the unethical activities.

On October 15, 1980, Yanguas filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labor and Employment, Regional Office No. IV, alleging illegal dismissal and suspension.
The complaint also served as an opposition to PLDT’s application for clearance to terminate his employment.
On March 16, 1981, Labor Arbiter Mirasol Corleto ruled that the evidence did not justify dismissal on grounds of negligence, considering the lengthy service record of Yanguas.
The Arbiter determined that dismissal was too severe a penalty and, as Yanguas was seeking only his retirement benefits (having nearly 30 years of service), he should be allowed to retire with such benefits.
Accordingly, the Arbiter ordered PLDT, within ten working days, to pay Yanguas retirement benefits amounting to ₱94,050.00, as mandated under the company’s Benefit Plan.

The notice of the Labor Arbiter’s decision was served on PLDT on March 23, 1981, at its Makati Main Office by a bailiff who left the notice with the receiving clerk at the ground floor.
Although the address of record for the petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Jesus F. Villarroya, was “9th Floor, PLDT Building, Makati, Metro Manila,” the notice was not served directly at that address.
It was only on March 26, 1981, when the Legal Services Division of PLDT received the notice, that proper service could be assumed.

On April 10, 1981, PLDT appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) regarding the portion of the decision awarding retirement benefits to Yanguas.
The NLRC, on January 20, 1982, dismissed PLDT’s appeal on the ground that it was filed beyond the reglementary period.
The NLRC computed the ten (10) working days for filing the appeal from the date of March 23, 1981—the service date as recorded by the receiving clerk.

PLDT contended that the March 23, 1981 service was invalid because the notice was not properly served on its counsel of record.
The petitioner argued that valid service occurred only on March 26, 1981, when its Legal Services Division actually received the decision.
As a result, PLDT claimed that the appeal period should have been computed from March 26, 1981, not March 23, 1981.

Should the ten (10) working days within which to file an appeal be computed from March 23, 1981 (the initial service date at the general receiving section) or from March 26, 1981 (the date when the counsel’s division received the notice)?

Is the service of notice on the general receiving section of PLDT’s main office, rather than at the counsel’s address of record, considered valid for purposes of computing the reglementary period for an appeal?