Case Digest (G.R. No. 130104)
Facts:
Elizabeth Sublay v. National Labor Relations Commission, Euro‑Swiss Food Inc., Werdenberg International Corporation and Werner Berger, G.R. No. 130104, January 31, 2000, Supreme Court Second Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Elizabeth Sublay was employed by private respondent Euro‑Swiss Food, Inc. (EURO‑SWISS) as Chief Accountant beginning 16 May 1991 and was notified by private respondent Werner Berger on 1 December 1994 that her position would be abolished and that her employment would terminate effective 31 December 1994. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of 13th month pay against EURO‑SWISS and Werner Berger. She invoked Articles 282–284 of the Labor Code as the basis for relief.
The Labor Arbiter (Potenciano Canizares Jr.) rendered a decision dated 18 November 1996 finding that petitioner’s dismissal was for redundancy/installation of labor‑saving devices and therefore just, but awarded separation pay equivalent to one month for every year of service (P50,400). Petitioner’s counsel of record, Atty. Gabriel Marquez, received the Labor Arbiter’s decision on 21 November 1996. A collaborating counsel, Atty. Raymond Paolo A. Alikpala, had filed an Entry of Appearance on 13 May 1996 requesting to be furnished courtesy copies of papers; he did not, however, receive a copy of the decision.
Petitioner filed an appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on 9 December 1996. The NLRC dismissed the appeal as filed beyond the ten (10)‑day reglementary period: counting from 21 November 1996, the tenth day fell on 1 December 1996 (a Sunday), and by law the period extended only to 2 December 1996; the appeal filed on 9 December was thus seven days late. Petitioner sought review in the Supreme Court by a special civil action for certiorari, alleging that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discreti...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing petitioner’s appeal for being filed beyond the ten‑day reglementary period?
- May petitioner be excused from the reglementary period and afforded relief because her collaborating counsel did not receive a copy of the Labor Arbiter’s decision and because of alleged n...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)