Facts:

The case involves SM Agricultural and General Machineries (petitioner) and Vivencio Abo (private respondent). Abo was employed by SM Industries on August 2, 1976, as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of a branch office. In 1981, the company changed its name to SM Agricultural and General Machineries, where Abo continued to work until his termination on May 31, 1982. Following his dismissal, Abo filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labor and Employment, which was docketed as Case No. RAB-V-No. 0891-82, alleging unlawful dismissal and seeking damages. The petitioner contended that Abo's termination was justified due to his willful disobedience in failing to report sales and collections since his appointment as OIC in January 1981.

On March 29, 1984, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Abo, ordering his reinstatement with back wages and awarding him various monetary claims, including unpaid salary, emergency allowances, and damages. The petitioner received the Arbiter's decis...

Facts:

Employment Background

• Private respondent Vivencio Abo was employed on 2 August 1976 by SM Industries as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of a branch office.
• In 1981, SM Industries changed its name to SM Agricultural and General Machineries, where Abo continued to work as an OIC until his termination on 31 May 1982.

Complaint and Allegations

• Abo filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (Case No. RAB-V-No. 0891-82) for unlawful dismissal, seeking damages.
• Petitioner (SM Agri and General Machineries) defended the termination, alleging that Abo willfully disobeyed orders by refusing to submit sales, collection reports, and monthly allowance since his appointment as OIC in January 1981.

Labor Arbiter's Decision

• On 29 March 1984, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Abo, ordering:
  1. Reinstatement with backwages for three years.
  2. Payment of unpaid salary (P10,000) and emergency allowances (P7,920).
  3. Payment of 13th-month pay (P1,350) and service incentive leave (P257.96).
  4. Moral damages (P30,000), exemplary damages (P15,000), and attorney’s fees (10% of total claims).

Appeal and NLRC's Dismissal

• Petitioner received the Labor Arbiter’s decision on 10 April 1984 and filed an appeal via registered mail on 23 April 1984.
• The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed the appeal on 29 November 1985, ruling it was filed out of time (13 days after receipt, exceeding the 10-day reglementary period under Article 223 of the Labor Code).
• Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on 7 April 1986, prompting the filing of this petition.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Computation of the 10-Day Period:

   • Article 223 of the Labor Code requires appeals to be filed within 10 calendar days from receipt of the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
   • However, when the last day to file falls on a legal holiday, the act may be done on the next business day, as provided under Section 31, Article VIII of the Revised Administrative Code.

2. Application to the Case:

   • Petitioner received the decision on 10 April 1984, making the last day to file the appeal 20 April 1984 (Good Friday, a legal holiday).
   • The next day, 21 April 1984, was also a non-working holiday (Saturday, declared by Presidential Proclamation No. 2353).
   • Thus, the appeal filed on 23 April 1984 (Monday, the next business day) was timely.

3. Distinction from Vir-Jen Shipping Case:

   • The ruling in Vir-Jen Shipping Corp. v. NLRC (115 SCRA 347) applies when a legal holiday falls within the 10-day period, not when the last day itself is a holiday.
   • In this case, the last day (20 April 1984) was a legal holiday, making Section 31 of the Revised Administrative Code applicable.

4. Exception to the General Rule:

   • The Court recognized an exception to the general rule in Vir-Jen Shipping: when the 10th day is a Sunday or legal holiday, the appeal may be filed on the next business day.

5. No Need to Address Merits:

   • The Court did not delve into the merits of the appeal, focusing solely on the procedural issue of timeliness.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court held that the NLRC erred in dismissing the appeal for tardiness. The appeal was timely filed on the next business day after the last day fell on a legal holiday. The NLRC was ordered to resolve the appeal on its merits.