Title
SM Agri and General Machineries vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. L-74806
Decision Date
Jan 9, 1989
Employee Vivencio Abo sued SM Agri for unlawful dismissal; Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor. SM Agri appealed late, citing holidays. SC ruled appeal timely, annulling NLRC dismissal, ordering merits review.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-74806)

Factual Background

Vivencio Abo was employed beginning 2 August 1976 by SM Industries as officer-in-charge of a branch. SM Industries later changed its name to SM Agri and General Machineries, where Abo continued to serve as OIC until his termination on 31 May 1982. Abo filed a complaint for unlawful dismissal with the Ministry of Labor and Employment, docketed as Case No. RAB-V-No. 0891-82. Petitioner defended the dismissal on the ground of willful disobedience by Abo in refusing to report sales, collection reports, and monthly allowance since his appointment as OIC in January 1981.

Labor Arbiter Decision

The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on 29 March 1984 in favor of Vivencio Abo, which petitioner received on 10 April 1984. The decision ordered reinstatement with backwages for a limited period of three years, awards for unpaid salary and allowances, 13th month pay and service incentive leave, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total claim. The dispositive portion spelled out specific sums and reliefs as set forth in the Labor Arbiter’s judgment.

Proceedings Before the NLRC

Petitioner filed an appeal by registered mail on 23 April 1984. The National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the appeal in its 29 November 1985 resolution on the ground that the appeal was filed out of time. The NLRC found that petitioner received the decision on 10 April 1984 and that the appeal, filed on the thirteenth day thereafter, exceeded the ten-day reglementary period under Art. 223, Labor Code of the Philippines.

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and Grounds

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing that the ten-day period prescribed by Art. 223 should be tolled because the last day to file fell on 20 April 1984, which was Good Friday and therefore a legal holiday. Petitioner asserted that it was physically impossible to file on that date and that the appeal, filed on 23 April 1984, the next business day, was timely under Sec. 31, Art. VIII of the Revised Administrative Code. The NLRC denied the motion in its 7 April 1986 resolution, prompting the present petition for certiorari.

Issue Presented

The sole issue presented was whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s appeal for alleged tardiness in filing, specifically whether the ten-day period under Art. 223 may be extended when the tenth day falls on a legal holiday.

Court’s Legal Analysis on Computation of the Reglementary Period

The Court acknowledged the general rule from Vir-Jen Shipping and Marine Services v. National Labor Relations Commission, 115 SCRA 347 (20 July 1982), that the ten-day period in Art. 223 refers to ten calendar days and not ten working days. The Court, however, recognized an exception where the tenth day itself falls on a Sunday or legal holiday. The Court applied Sec. 31, Art. VIII of the Revised Administrative Code, which provides that when the last day for doing an act required or permitted by law falls on a holiday, the act may be done on the next succeeding business day. The Court held that this administrative provision governs where the last day coincides with a legal holiday.

Application of Law to the Facts

The Court found that petitioner received the Labor Arbiter’s decision on 10 April 1984, making 20 April 1984 the tenth calendar day to appeal. Because 20 April 1984 was Good Friday, a legal holiday, and the following Saturday had been declared a non-working public holiday by Presidential Proclamation No. 2353, the next business day was Monday, 23 April 1984. The appeal actually was filed on that Monday. Under Sec. 31, Art. VIII, the filing on the next business day was permissible. The Court therefore concluded that the NLRC erred in dismissing the appeal as late.

Distinction from Vir-Jen Shipping

The Court distinguished the present case from Vir-Jen Shipping, exp

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.