Barcenas Vs NLRC
Barcenas Vs NLRC
Barcenas Vs NLRC
*
G.R. Nos. 169295-96. November 20, 2006.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
392
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f1efa9b2dda34b0b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/24
10/15/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 507
allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the
product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that
the pleading is filed in good faith. The court may order the
correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or act on the
pleading although it is not verified, if the attending circumstances
are such that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed
with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served.
Same; Same; Same; Appeals; While it is an established rule
that the 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 has the effect of rendering the
judgment final and executory, it is equally settled that the
National Labor Relations Commission may disregard the
procedural lapse where there is an acceptable reason to excuse
tardiness in the taking of the appeal.—Under Article 223 of the
Labor Code, the decision of the NLRC shall be final and executory
after ten (10) calendar days from the receipt thereof by the
parties. While it is an established rule that the 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 has the effect of rendering the judgment final and
executory, it is equally settled that the NLRC may disregard the
procedural lapse where there is an acceptable reason to excuse
tardiness in the taking of the appeal. Among the acceptable
reasons recognized by this Court are (a) counsel’s reliance on the
footnote of the notice of the decision of the Labor Arbiter that “the
aggrieved party may appeal. . . within ten (10) working days”; (b)
fundamental consideration of substantial justice; (c) prevention of
miscarriage of justice or of unjust enrichment, as where the tardy
appeal is from a decision granting separation pay which was
already granted in an earlier final decision; and (d) special
circumstances of the case combined with its legal merits or the
amount and the issue involved.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Technicality should not be
permitted to stand in the way of equitably and completely
resolving the rights and obligations of the parties for the ends of
justice are reached not only through the speedy disposal of cases
but, more importantly, through a meticulous and comprehensive
evaluation of the merits of a case.—We hold that the particular
circumstances in the case at bar, in accordance with substantial
justice, call for a liberalization of the application of this rule.
Notably, respondent’s last day for filing her
393
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f1efa9b2dda34b0b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/24
10/15/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 507
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f1efa9b2dda34b0b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/24
10/15/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 507
394
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f1efa9b2dda34b0b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/24
10/15/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 507
395
PUNO, J.:
1
Before this Court is the Petition for Review on Certiorari
filed by Remington Industrial2
Sales Corporation to reverse
and set aside the Decision of the Fourth Division of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 64577 and 68477,
dated January 31, 2005, which dismissed petitioner’s
consolidated3
petitions for certiorari, and its subsequent
Resolution, dated August 11, 2005, which denied
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
The antecedent facts of the case, as narrated by the
Court of Appeals, are as follows:
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f1efa9b2dda34b0b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/24
10/15/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 507
396
397
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f1efa9b2dda34b0b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/24
10/15/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 507
Angelita A. Gacutan.
398
SO ORDERED."
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f1efa9b2dda34b0b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/24
10/15/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 507
399
_______________
400
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f1efa9b2dda34b0b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/24
10/15/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 507
_______________
401
10
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f1efa9b2dda34b0b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/24
10/15/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 507
10
time as also11required by Section 10, Rule VI and Section
15, Rule VII of the aforementioned rules.
Upon petitioner’s motion, the Court of Appeals ordered
the consolidation of the two (2) petitions, on January 24,
2002, pursuant to Section 7, par. b(3), Rule 3 of the Revised
Rules of the Court of Appeals. It summarized the principal
issues raised in the consolidated petitions as follows:
_______________
Section 10. Period to Resolve Appeal.—The Commission shall resolve the appeal
from the decision, order of award of the Labor Arbiter and the Administrator
within twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of the answer of the appellee or
upon the filing of the last pleading or memorandum required by this Rules. In case
of appeal from the decision of the Regional Director or his duly authorized Hearing
Officer, the same shall be resolved within ten (10) calendar days.
11 Section 15, Rule VII of the New Rules of Procedure of the National
Labor Relations Commission provides:
402
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f1efa9b2dda34b0b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/24
10/15/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 507
_______________
404
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f1efa9b2dda34b0b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/24
10/15/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 507
_______________
405
17
tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their
strict and rigid application, which would result in
technicalities that tend to frustrate rather18 than promote
substantial justice, must always be avoided.
This Court has consistently held that the requirement of
verification is formal, and not jurisdictional. Such
requirement is merely a condition affecting the form of the
pleading, non-compliance with which does not necessarily
render it fatally defective. Verification is simply intended
to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f1efa9b2dda34b0b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/24
10/15/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 507
are true and correct and not the product of the imagination
or a matter19of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in
good faith. The court may order the correction of the
pleading if verification is lacking or act on the pleading
although it is not verified, if the attending circumstances
are such that strict compliance with the rules may be
dispensed with in 20
order that the ends of justice may
thereby be served.
Anent the argument that respondent’s motion for
reconsideration, on which the NLRC’s second decision was
based, was filed out of time, such issue was only brought up
for the first time in the instant petition where no new
issues may be raised by a party in his pleadings without
offending the right to due process of the opposing party.
Nonetheless, the petitioner asserts that the respondent
received a copy of the NLRC’s first decision on December 6,
2000, and the motion for reconsideration was filed only on
December 18, 2000, or two (2) days beyond the ten (10)-
_______________
406
_______________
21 Section 14, Rule VII of the New Rules of Procedure of the National
Labor Relations Commission.
22 Article 223 of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides:
407
_______________
see also the Resolution therein of July 26, 1988; Blancaflor v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 101013, February 2, 1993, 218
SCRA 366, 370-371.
26 Olacao v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 81390,
August 29, 1989, 177 SCRA 38, 41.
27 Pacific Asia Overseas Shipping Corp. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 76595, May 6, 1988, 161 SCRA 122, 130.
28 City Fair Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
95711, April 21, 1995, 243 SCRA 572, 576.
29 See Judy Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 111934, April 29, 1998, 289 SCRA 764; Aquino v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 98108, September 3, 1993, 226 SCRA 81-
82; Pacaña v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 83513,
April 18, 1989, 172 SCRA 472.
408
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f1efa9b2dda34b0b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/24
10/15/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 507
_______________
409
32
In Apex Mining Company, Inc. v. NLRC, this Court held
that a househelper in the staff houses of an industrial
company was a regular employee of the said firm. We
ratiocinated that:
_______________
32 G.R. No. 94951, April 22, 1991, 196 SCRA 251, 254-255.
410
_______________
33 CA Rollo, p. 24.
34 Philippine Fuji Xerox Corporation v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 111501, March 5, 1996, 254 SCRA 300301.
411
_______________
35 Rollo, p. 27.
36 Id.
37 Id.
412
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f1efa9b2dda34b0b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/24
10/15/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 507
413
43
has no more intention to work. The intent to discontinue
the employment must be shown44
by clear proof that it was
deliberate and unjustified. This, the petitioner failed to do
in the case at bar.
Alongside the petitioner’s contention that it was the
respondent who quit her employment and refused to return
to work, greater stock may be taken of the respondent’s
immediate filing of her complaint with the NLRC. Indeed,
an employee who loses no time in protesting her layoff
cannot by any reasoning be said to have abandoned her
work, for it is well-settled that the filing of an employee of
a complaint for illegal dismissal with a prayer for
reinstatement is proof enough of her desire to return to
work, thus, 45 negating the employer’s charge of
abandonment.
In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the
employer to show that the dismissal is for a just and valid
cause; failure to do so 46
would necessarily mean that the
dismissal was illegal. The employer’s case succeeds or
fails on the strength of its evidence47 and not on the
weakness of the employee’s defense. If doubt exists
between the evidence presented by the employer and the
employee,
48
the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the
latter.
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f1efa9b2dda34b0b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/24
10/15/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 507
414
——o0o——
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f1efa9b2dda34b0b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/24
10/15/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 507
415
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f1efa9b2dda34b0b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/24