ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 148203.July 18, 2001]

CHRIS GARMENTS CORP. et. al. vs. SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA CHRIS GARMENTS CORP. et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentleman:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated. JUL 18 2001

G.R. No. 148203( Chris Garments Corp., et al. vs. Samahang Manggagawa sa Chris Garments Corp., and 96 others represented Cristy M Tumayao.)

Petitioner Chris Garments Corporation is a garment manufacturing company and a subcontractor of Formostar Garments (Phils.) Co., Inc. Respondent Samahang Manggagawa sa Chris Garments Corporation is the union representing petitioner's 96 employees.

Respondents filed a petition for their regularization of employment in petitioner company before the Office of the Voluntary Arbitrator of the National Capital Region. The Voluntary Arbitrator found respondents to be regular employees entitled to all the rights, benefits, and privileges appurtenant thereto of a regular employee, retroactive to the seventh month after their respective hiring. He cited the following reasons: that the functions performed by respondents not only desirable but necessary to the usual trade or business of the company; that the length of respondents' tenure from 1993, 1994, and 1995 up to the present is indicative of their- regular status; that the repeated rehirings of respondents are indicia of their regular status; that petitioner company failed to report to the Public Employment Office of the Department of Labor and Employment after the completion of every project by the respondent employee; that the contracts, which had a duration of five (5) months for each employee, with petitioner company reserving the right to cancel the same at any time for valid and legal reasons, even if signed by the employees, were not binding.

Petitioner filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals, but its petition was dismissed on the ground it was filed late, despite an extension of time for doing so granted to it. In addition, the appeals court held one Marvel S. Carreon, who was alleged to be the personnel manager of petitioner corporation, did not have authority to file the petition for review and that the copies of the material portions of the record or other supporting papers had not been attached to the petition as required by Rule 43, �6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals relied on technicalities to dismiss its appeal to the sacrifice of the merits of the case.

The Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the ruling of the appeals court. Perfection of an appeal in the manner prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional and failure to comply with the Rules of Court has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory (S ee Filcon Manufacturing Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 199 SCRA 814 (1991)).

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B.MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE