ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 143434. July 10, 2000]
SERGON MKTG., et al. vs. THE 2nd DIV. OF THE NLRC, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 10 2000.
G.R. No. 143434 (Sergon Marketing and/or Editha Gonzales Bernal vs. Florencio Tolentino, The Second Division of the National Labor Relations Commission and the Eighth Division of the Court of Appeals.)
The petition before us seeks to review and set aside two resolutions of the Court of Appeals1 In CA - G. R. SP No. 57596 (NLRC-CA 020409-99/NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-10-07474-97), penned by Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole, Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero and Hilarion L. Aquino, concurring. dated March 10, 2000 and April 24, 2000.
The facts are as follows:
On October 20, 1997, private respondents filed before the National Labor Relations Commission a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salaries/wages and 13th month pay.
On September 11, 1998, NLRC rendered decision finding petitioners guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering them to pay the total amount of One Hundred Five Thousand Pesos (P 105,007.00) as monetary awards.
On March 16, 1999, petitioners filed their appeal and urgent motion to reduce bond before the NLRC.
On October 13, 1999, the NLRC issued an order dismissing the appeal for non-perfection thereof and for petitioners' failure to file an appeal bond.
On January 19, 2000 the NLRC denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration for "lack of merit."
On March 7, 2000, petitioners filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals.
On March 10, 2000, however, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for violation of the rules on certification against forum-shopping. Apparently, the counsel for petitioners signed the certification for non-forum shopping.
On March 29, 2000, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the above resolution contending that there was substantial compliance with the rules.
On April 24, 2000, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration.
Hence, this petition.2 Filed on June 21, 2000.
Petitioners' continuous technical errors from the NLRC all the was to the Supreme Court cannot be tolerated inasmuch as such disregard of the rules of procedure would only result in the unnecessary clogging of the Court's dockets.
The petition must fail for lack of merit and for failure of petitioners to file the instant petition within the reglementary period of appeal.
The records show that on May 4, 2000, petitioners received copy of the Court of Appeals' resolution dated April 24, 2000. In said resolution, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. This petition was filed only on June 21, 2000 when petitioners' period to file an appeal had expired on May 19, 2000.
Perfection of an appeal within the statutory period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional.3 Kathy-O Enterprises vs. NLRC, 286 SCRA 729 [1998]; Rosewood Processing, Inc. vs. NLRC, 290 SCRA 408 [1998]. Failure to perfect such appeal as required by law renders the judgment final and executory.4 Mabuhay Development Industries vs. NLRC, 288 SCRA 407 [1998]; Pascual vs. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 214 [1998]. Thus, the appealed resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R No. SP No. 57596 had attained finality.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
