Case Summary (G.R. No. 60050)
Background of Events
On September 20, 1980, Yanguas was informed of his preventive suspension effective October 1, 1980, pending a clearance from the Ministry of Labor and Employment. The petitioner filed for his termination citing negligence in supervising an employee, Vicente Rebong, who was arrested for qualified theft involving company property. Yanguas contested the allegations, arguing that they were unfounded and motivated by a desire to avoid paying his retirement benefits, as he was nearing eligibility for retirement.
Labor Arbiter's Decision
On March 16, 1981, the Labor Arbiter ruled that Yanguas' alleged negligence did not justify his dismissal and found the penalty too severe. The Arbiter ordered the petitioner to pay Yanguas retirement benefits totaling Ninety Four Thousand Fifty Pesos (₱94,050.00). The Arbiter noted that the complainant was not seeking reinstatement but rather the retirement benefits, given his length of service of nearly thirty years.
Notice of Decision
The petitioner's legal counsel received notice of the Arbiter's decision only on March 26, 1981, while the company itself acknowledged receipt on March 23, 1981. The distinction in these dates was critical as it became central to determining whether the appeal was filed within the required period.
Timeliness of Appeal
The petitioner argued that the appeal to the NLRC, filed on April 10, 1981, was timely since it was within ten working days of receiving proper notice of the Arbiter's decision on March 26. In contrast, the respondents maintained that the appeal was late, as the notice delivered to the petitioner on March 23 was sufficient for triggering the appeal period.
Legal Basis for Service of Notice
Under Section 2, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court, it is stipulated that service of notices and pleadings must be made to the party's registered attorney unless otherwise ordered by the court. The Supreme Court highlighted that valid service was not executed when the decision was left with a receiving clerk rather than delivered to the legal counsel at their designated office.
Court's Ruling on Valid Service
The Court concluded that the service on March 23 was inadequate because it did not reach Yanguas' legal counsel as per the rules. Only with the proper service on March 26 could the ten-day period to appeal reasonably begin. Given these considerations, the court ruled that the NLRC had erred in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 60050)
Case Background
- The case involves a petition to review a resolution by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated January 20, 1982.
- The resolution dismissed an appeal from the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) on the grounds that it was filed beyond the reglementary period.
- Rodolfo Yanguas, the private respondent, was employed by PLDT starting January 22, 1951, and advanced to the position of Cable Foreman SJG-2 by July 1972.
Events Leading to Dismissal
- Yanguas was placed under preventive suspension effective October 1, 1980, pending clearance for alleged incompetence and inefficiency.
- On September 23, 1980, PLDT filed an application with the Ministry of Labor and Employment to terminate Yanguas' employment based on the aforementioned grounds.
- Allegations against Yanguas included negligence in supervising an employee, Vicente Rebong, who was involved in the theft of company materials.
Labor Arbiter's Decision
- On March 16, 1981, Labor Arbiter Mirasol Corleto ruled that Yanguas' negligence was not sufficient cause for dismissal and deemed the penalty too harsh.
- The Arbiter noted Yanguas' long tenure (29 yea