Case Digest (G.R. No. 72572)
Facts:
San Miguel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, Labor Arbiter Lolito C. Fulleros and Antonio Mangampo, G.R. No. 72572, December 19, 1989, Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) filed an application for clearance to terminate the services of respondent employee Antonio Mangampo with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment Regional Office No. 5 in Naga City on January 5, 1981; Mangampo had been a warehouseman-cashier at SMC’s Daet sales office for about six months and was placed on preventive suspension, with the notice of application received January 7, 1981. Mangampo filed an opposition on January 17, 1981, and the matter was certified to the Labor Arbitration Branch (docketed RAB Case No. 102-81) and assigned to Executive Labor Arbiter Lolito C. Fulleros; both parties were required to file position papers.
Proceedings were protracted. Hearings were set, postponed, and at one calendar date SMC’s counsel failed to appear; Mangampo moved to have his position paper adopted as direct testimony and to declare SMC in default, and the hearing officer granted both motions. Later, “in order to serve the ends of labor justice,” SMC was allowed to file its position paper (dated July 18, 1983) asserting loss of trust and confidence based on alleged misappropriation of company funds. The hearing officer recommended reinstatement; Executive Labor Arbiter Fulleros adopted the recommendation and issued a decision ordering reinstatement with backwages and attorney’s fees (the arbiter’s decision appears in the record dated June 26, 1984).
SMC appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), docketed as Case No. RAB-V-162-81, insisting the termination was justifiable. Mangampo moved to dismiss the appeal as filed beyond the ten-day reglementary period under then Article 223 of the Labor Code; the envelope furnished in the record bore a post office stamp of August 6, 1984. The NLRC, in a resolution of March 8, 1985, dismissed SMC’s appeal as untimely; SMC’s motion for reconsideration (supported by a xerox copy of Registry Receipt No. 866 with a handwritten July 27, 1984 date) was denied on September 20, 1985, the NLRC giving greater weight to the post office stamp on the mailing envelope than to the unverified xerox registry receipt.
SMC petitioned the Supreme Court for the extraordinary writ of certiorari challe...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing SMC’s appeal as filed out of time?
- Was the NLRC’s dismissal of the appeal without determination of the merits proper?
- On the merits, was SMC’s termination of Mangampo for alleged misappropriation and loss of trust and confidence justified ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)