Case Summary (G.R. No. L-69628)
Factual Background: Narag’s Assignment and the Incident at UGCC
During Narag’s latest assignment with Airborne Security Services, he served at UGCC as security-in-charge and later as security officer, receiving P 1,200.00 monthly compensation including allowances. On July 14, 1982, Airborne Security Services received a communication from UGCC requesting Narag’s relief. On July 15, 1982, Airborne’s director of operations (Mr. Enrique Peregrin) and UGCC’s personnel contact (Mr. Carlito Galita) confronted Narag regarding an incident that had been the basis of UGCC management’s memorandum of relief.
Narag submitted a written letter of explanation and narrated that, after a visitor identified as Mrs. Edar arrived searching for her husband, his guards called the husband’s supervisor twice to inform him that Mrs. Edar was waiting at the gate. Narag recounted that the husband later arrived at the gate and accused the security guards of failing to notify him earlier. Narag stated that after Mr. Pineda contacted him by phone, Mr. Pineda accused him of not performing his duty and Narag replied that they were acting for the benefit of the employees there. Peregrin and Galita reacted with laughter and told Narag to report the following day, July 16, 1982, to Airborne’s central office.
The Memorandum of July 16, 1982 and the Events Following Relief
Pursuant to UGCC’s request for Narag’s relief, Airborne issued a memorandum dated July 16, 1982 addressed to Narag. The memorandum informed him that his conduct allegedly included argumentation with a UGCC employee (Mr. Edar) and UGCC’s corporate personnel manager (Mr. I. Pineda), despite knowledge of the client’s instruction that security forces should not argue or discuss with UGCC employees, “not even to the lower laborer,” and certainly not with officials. The memorandum characterized his allegedly rude and arrogant behavior as having angered UGCC management and jeopardized the integrity and reputation of UGCC.
The memorandum stated that UGCC had requested Narag’s immediate relief and concluded that Airborne had “no other recourse but to give in to their request.” It then declared: “you are hereby informed that you are relieved immediately and placed under Headquarters disposition effective upon receipt of this memo.” Airborne later assigned another guard, Gabriel, to temporarily take over Narag’s post.
After receiving the memorandum, Narag continued reporting for duty at Airborne’s central headquarters from July 16, 1982 to July 31, 1982, but he was not given any assignment by his employer. On July 30, 1982, he asked for his salary from Airborne’s accounting department and was told that he had no salary to receive because his services were already terminated. Narag then approached Peregrin, who told him that Narag had no salary because he had already been laid off.
Filing of the Labor Complaint and the Parties’ Positions
On August 5, 1985, Narag filed a complaint with the NLRC National Capital Region, Manila, against Airborne Security Services, Inc., alleging illegal dismissal, non-payment of legal holiday pay, violations of PD Nos. 525, 851 and 1123, and reimbursement of cash deposits. Airborne filed its position paper on October 10, 1982, asserting that Narag had been paid all benefits and remuneration under existing laws and regulations, and denying illegal dismissal. It claimed Narag “was merely requested to be relieved” and had to wait for a vacancy consistent with his rank. Narag, through counsel, filed his position paper on October 18, 1982, maintaining that he was “effectively dismissed without any cause whatsoever.”
Labor Arbiter’s Decision: Constructive Dismissal and Monetary Award
The case proceeded before Labor Arbiter Raymundo R. Valenzuela, who heard evidence including Narag’s testimony and testimony from Airborne’s officers, Peregrin and Jaime N. Sabado, among others. On April 17, 1984, the Labor Arbiter issued a decision finding that Narag was constructively dismissed without a valid cause. The Labor Arbiter ordered Narag’s reinstatement to his former position and the payment of one (1) year backwages, described as “the least amount amenable” to Narag. The Labor Arbiter dismissed Narag’s claims for legal holiday pay, Ecola, and thirteenth month pay for lack of merit. It also ordered reimbursement of Narag’s cash deposit of P240.00 if he forewent reinstatement.
NLRC Appeal, NLRC Ruling, and the Jurisdictional Issue
Airborne received the Labor Arbiter’s decision on April 30, 1984 and filed a “Partial Appeal” on May 11, 1984. It argued that Narag was only placed under headquarters disposition and was not dismissed. The NLRC Third Division, en banc, promulgated its decision on December 27, 1984, ruling that Narag was not dismissed or suspended, but merely directed to present himself for instruction and/or assignments; it further found that Narag opted not to work during the period from July 16 to 31, 1982, and accordingly ordered reinstatement but without backwages.
Narap then filed the petition for review before this Court, contending in substance that the NLRC lacked jurisdiction to entertain Airborne’s appeal because the appeal was filed out of time, and that the Labor Arbiter’s decision had already become final and executory.
The Parties’ Contentions in the Petition for Review
Petitioner maintained that the NLRC had no jurisdiction because Airborne’s appeal period under Art. 223 had lapsed after the required ten (10) days from receipt of the Labor Arbiter’s decision. Airborne countered that the ten-day period should be treated as working days, relying on NLRC Resolution No. 1, Series of 1977, and contended that only nine days had lapsed when counted as working days.
The Court’s Ruling on Jurisdiction and Timeliness of Appeal
The Court sustained petitioner’s position. It held that it was “too late in the day” for Airborne to insist that an award, order, or decision of the Labor Arbiter could be appealed within ten working days. The Court reasoned that Art. 223 shortened the reglementary period by fixing ten (10) days in which to appeal, and that the period should be understood as calendar days, not working days. The Court relied on Vir-Jen Shipping and Marine Services vs. NLRC (115 SCRA 347), where the Court held that the shortened ten-day period contemplates calendar days and not working days.
Applying this rule, the Court observed that May 10, 1984 was a Thursday. It found that Airborne filed its appeal on the eleventh day after receipt of the Labor Arbiter’s decision, rendering the appeal one (1) day late. The Court declared that the Labor Arbiter’s decision had already become final and executory and that the NLRC’s assumption of jurisdiction to modify the Labor Arbiter’s award was erroneous. The Court further underscored that perfection of an appeal within the period prescribed by law is mandatory and jurisdictional, and failure to perfect in the manner and within the period prescribed results in finality of the judgment.
Substantive Review: Effective and Illegal Dismissal
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-69628)
- The case involved a Petition for review on certiorari challenging the NLRC Third Division decision of December 27, 1984, which modified the Labor Arbiter’s ruling in a labor dispute.
- The labor case concerned illegal dismissal and related money claims filed by Pedro B. Narag against Airborne Security Services, Inc.
- The Supreme Court ultimately reversed and set aside the NLRC decision and affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s order for reinstatement and one (1) year backwages, while addressing the timeliness and jurisdictional effect of the employer’s appeal.
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Pedro B. Narag petitioned the Supreme Court to review the NLRC decision that had modified the Labor Arbiter’s disposition.
- The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Airborne Security Services, Inc. were the named respondents in the Supreme Court petition.
- The NLRC had modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision on appeal filed by the employer.
- The Supreme Court gave due course to the petition in a Resolution of July 17, 1985.
- The Supreme Court treated the appeal’s perfection and the NLRC’s jurisdiction as the core procedural matters, and it also reviewed the substantive dismissal issue.
Key Factual Allegations
- Airborne Security Services, Inc. was a security agency licensed and registered under Rep. Act 5487, providing security guards for compensation.
- During Narag’s latest employment period, he worked from November 1980 until he received, on July 16, 1982, a memorandum that he considered a dismissal.
- Narag’s assignment as security-in-charge was at the Union Glass and Container Corporation (UGCC).
- Narag’s latest position was security officer, with monthly compensation of P1,200.00 including allowances.
- On July 14, 1982, the security agency received a communication from UGCC’s personnel manager requesting relief of Narag.
- On July 15, 1982, Narag met with Mr. Enrique Peregrin (director of operations) and Mr. Carlito Galita (UGCC), where they confronted him regarding the incident described in the relief memorandum.
- Narag provided an explanation alleging that guards first informed the husband’s supervisor to allow the husband to meet his wife at the gate, but that the husband later accused the guards and that Mr. I. Pineda thereafter shouted at Narag.
- Peregrin and Galita did not provide answers to Narag’s queries and instead told him to report to the company’s central office the next day, July 16, 1982.
- On July 16, 1982, the employer issued a memorandum stating that Narag was relieved immediately and placed under Headquarters disposition, effective upon receipt.
- After the memorandum, a replacement (named Gabriel) took over Narag’s UGCC post temporarily.
- Narag continued reporting for duty at the employer’s central office from July 16 to July 31, 1982, but he was not given any assignment.
- On July 30, 1982, Narag asked for his salary and was informed by the accounting department that he had no salary because his services were already terminated.
- On inquiry, Narag was told by Peregrin that he had no salary because he had been laid off.
Employment History and Incident
- Narag was employed in the security agency in three periods: 1973–1976, 1977–1978, and November 1980 until July 1982.
- Narag’s employment dispute arose from an incident that UGCC management considered to involve improper argumentation and allegedly rude and arrogant conduct in violation of client instructions.
- The employer’s memorandum emphasized that security personnel should not argue or discuss with UGCC employees, and it cited UGCC management’s view that Narag’s behavior had placed UGCC’s integrity and reputation at stake.
- The memorandum’s stated basis was a request for Narag’s immediate relief from UGCC.
NLRC and Labor Arbiter Proceedings
- On August 5, 1985, Narag f