#8
Luna v. NLRC
G.R. No. 116404, 20 March 1997
DOCTRINE/S: Under the rules of the NLRC, an appeal from the Labor Arbiter’s decision to the NLRC may
be taken (1) by filing a verified memorandum of appeal and (2) by paying the appeal fees filed within ten
(10) calendar days from receipt of a decision, award or order of the Labor Arbiter. Both requisites must be
satisfied, otherwise the running of the prescriptive period for perfecting an appeal will not be tolled.
FACT/S:
Petitioners were security guards of private respondents Lion’s Security and Services Corporation
and its successor, Grandeur Security Services Corporation. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal,
underpayment of wages and non-payment of labor standards benefits, before the regional arbitration
branch of the NLRC where private respondents were held liable to pay petitioners wage differentials
corresponding to the period of services rendered. But the Labor Arbiter found petitioners’ dismissal proper
and their other claims to be without merit. On petitioners' appeal to the NLRC, their appeal was dismissed
based on NLRC's finding that petitioners' counsel had been furnished a copy of the Labor Arbiter's decision
on April 12, 1993 but their appeal was only filed on May 5, 1993. It also found that petitioners’ counsel
received a copy of the decision on April 12, 1993 based on the Notice of Judgment/Decision attached to
the record of the case. On the other hand, the NLRC based its statement that petitioners filed their appeal
only on May 5, 1993 on the stamp "Received" of the NLRC Docket Section showing payment of the appeal
fee and research fee. Consequently, the NLRC held that the appeal was filed out of time. Petitioners,
through this special civil action for certiorari, assailed the NLRC's order asserting that they received the LA
decision on April 16, 1993 and filed their appeal on April 26, 1993, the last day of the 10-day reglementary
period. As proof, they showed the registry return card addressed to the NLRC which shows that the
registered mail containing the decision was received by their counsel on April 16, 1993 and the envelope
addressed to the NLRC, which they claimed contained their appeal memorandum, which was stamped
April 26, 1993.
For its part, the NLRC argues that this petition must be dismissed because petitioners did not file a
motion for the reconsideration of the NLRC order before bringing this action. Moreover, even conceding
that petitioners’ counsel received the appealed decision on April 16, 1993, the appeal of petitioners must
nevertheless be considered as having been filed out of time because it was personally filed on May 5,
1993, based on the fact that the official receipt shows that the appeal and research fees were paid in cash
on May 5, 1993 and that the appeal was stamped received by the Docket Section on that day. Private
respondent Grandeur Security Services Corporation also defends the order of the NLRC and contends that
petitioners’ appeal was not perfected because the required appeal fees were paid beyond the reglementary
period.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in dismissing the petitioners’ appeal.
HELD:
NO. Under the rules of the NLRC, an appeal from the Labor Arbiter’s decision to the NLRC may be
taken (1) by filing a verified memorandum of appeal and (2) by paying the appeal fees filed within ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of a decision, award or order of the Labor Arbiter. Both requisites must be
satisfied, otherwise the running of the prescriptive period for perfecting an appeal will not be tolled.
In this case, the Court ruled that with respect to the date of filing of petitioners’ memorandum, it is
likewise inclined to sustain petitioners claim that this was on April 26, 1993, the date stamped on the
envelope which, petitioners allege, contained the appeal memorandum they sent to the NLRC. This is clear
from the xerox copy of the envelope which is stamped "REGISTERED . . . APR 26, 1993." As no other mail
appears to have been sent by counsel to the addressee on that day, it is probable that this envelope
contained the appeal memorandum of petitioners. However, the records do not support their claim that
they also paid the appeal fees on April 26, 1993, together with the filing of their appeal memorandum. What
appears instead is that they paid the fees only on May 5, 1993, nine days after the expiration date of the
reglementary period, as shown in the receipt given to petitioners. As the NLRC stated in its comment, the
official receipt shows that the appeal fees were paid in cash only on May 5, 1993. This finding was not
refuted by petitioners in their petition and reply. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence, this
finding is entitled to great respect. As payment of the requisite appeal fees is an indispensable and
jurisdictional requisite and not a mere technicality of law or procedure, and as the failure to comply with this
requirement renders the decision of the court final, the Court holds that the NLRC correctly dismissed
petitioners’ appeal. Indeed, appeal is only a statutory privilege and therefore it may only be exercised in the
manner provided by law.
