Narag vs NLRC (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW)

G.R. No. L-69628 October 28, 1987

PEDRO B. NARAG, petitioner, 
vs.
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and AIRBORNE SECURITY SERVICES, INC., respondents.

GANCAYCO, J.:

FACTS:

Respondent security agency received on April 30, 1984 a copy of the aforementioned decision of the labor arbiter. And, on May 11, 1984, respondent security agency filed its aforesaid 'Partial Appeal from the decision of the labor arbiter to the respondent Commission, claiming in the main that complainant Narag was only placed under headquarter's disposition on July 16, 1982; he was never dismissed from the service of respondent security agency (see records).

On December 27, 1984, respondent Commission, Third Division, en banc promulgated its decision on the appeal, finding that complainant Narag was not dismissed nor suspended from his employment but was merely directed to present himself to the security agency's central office for instruction and/or assignments but he opted not to work during the period from July 16, to 31, 1982; hence, he should be, as it was so ordered, reinstated to his former position but without any backwages (see Annex "C", Petition).

Believing that the foregoing decision of respondent Commission virtually set aside the labor arbiter's decision in this labor case, complainant Narag filed the instant petition for review before this Honorable Court. 3

In said Comment * the Solicitor General prayed that the instant petition be given due course. In the Resolution of July 17, 1985 4 this Court gave due course to the petition.

Petitioner maintains that respondent NLRC has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by private respondent Airborne Security Service, Inc., much less modify the decision appealed from, the same having become final and executory after the lapse of ten (10) days from respondent's receipt thereof. Private respondent maintains otherwise, alleging that the ten (10) days period of appeal allowed under Art. 223 5 of the New Labor Code contemplates ten (10) working days as per NLRC Resolution No. 1, Series of 1977. Accordingly, counting from April 30, 1984, the day of the receipt of the decision, to May 11, 1984, the day of filing the appeal, only nine (9) days lapsed.

ISSUE:

Whether the the 10 working days specify in NLRC Resolution No. 1 Series of 1977 is within the authority of the law which is 10 days as stated under Article 223 of the Labor Code.

RULING:

We sustain the petitioner. It is too late in the day for private respondent to insist that an award, order or decision by the Labor Arbiter may be appealed to the NLRC within a period of ten (I0) working days from receipt, discounting Saturdays and Sundays. May 10, 1984 is a Thursday. If it were a Sunday or holiday the filing of the appeal the following day would have been allowable. 6 In the case of Vir-Jen Shipping and Marine Services vs. NLRC, 7 this Court categorically held that the shortened period of ten (10) days fixed by Art. 223 of the Labor Code contemplates calendar days and not working days. This Court speaking through Associate Justice Barredo held:

Thus, considering that the appeal by private respondent from the decision of the Labor Arbiter was filed on the eleventh day after receipt of the said decision, it was one (1) day late of the ten-day reglementary period which terminated on May 10, 1984.

Consequently, the decision of the Labor Arbiter had already become final and executory. 9 Perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal as required by the Rules has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory. 10