SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-54247 December 19, 1980

REYNALDO A. FABULA, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and R. MECHANICAL DYNAMICS, Respondents.chanrobles virtual law library

ABAD SANTOS, J.:

This is an appeal by certiorari to review the resolution of the respondent National Labor Relations Commission dated May 30,1980, in NLRC Case No. RB-IV-21310-78-T, the dispositive portion of which reads: chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal should be as it is hereby dismissed for having been filed out of the reglementary period as provided for under Sec. 7, Rule XIII, Book V, of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code.

The only question in this appeal is whether or not the petitioner had seasonably filed his appeal with the respondent Commission.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In a Manifestation dated December 5, 1980, the Solicitor General stated, inter alia, that: chanrobles virtual law library

3. A review of the records of the instant case showed that the decision of Labor Arbiter Cresencio J. Ramos dated August 11, 1978 which dismissed petitioner's complaint against private respondent R. Mechanical Dynamic was received by him (petitioner) on October 16, 1978. The record likewise disclosed that petitioner filed his appeal memorandum with respondent National Labor Relations Commission on November 3, 1978. On November 23, 1978 respondent company filed with respondent National Labor Relations Commission a motion to dismiss petitioner's appeal. On May 30, 1980 respondent National Labor Relations Commission promulgated a resolution which dismissed petitioner's appeal "for having been filed out of the reglementary period as provided for under Section 7, Rule XIII, Book V, of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

4. Petitioner's appeal memorandum of November 3, 1978 was seasonably filed with respondent NLRC, hence was erroneously dismissed. Indeed, from October 16 to November 3, 1978 there were eighteen (18) calendar days. Out of these eighteen (18) calendar days, there were two (2) Saturdays (considered non-working days under the abovementioned rule), two (2) Sundays and four (4) public holidays (October 26 and 27, because of typhoon Kading, pursuant to Memorandum Circular No. 1105 issued by Presidential Assistant Juan C. Tuvera by authority of the President of the Philippines, and October 31 and November 1 by virtue of Proclamation No. 1796 of the President of the Philippines, in celebration of All Saints Day) or a total of eight (8) non-working days. It is thus unquestionable that there were only ten (10) working days from October 16 to November 3, 1980. Consequently, petitioner's appeal memorandum was timely filed on November 3,1978.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

5. Undersigned counsel have conferred with respondent National Labor Relations Commission Commissioners Federico Borromeo and Cecilia T. Seno about the instant case and both agreed to the filing of the foregoing manifestation.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, undersigned counsel, manifest that they interpose no objection to have the instant case remanded to respondent National Labor Relations Commission for the resolution of petitioner's appeal.

WHEREFORE, the questioned resolution is hereby set aside and the appeal reinstated. No costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.