C.W. Tan Mfg. vs. NLRC

Failure to furnish a copy of the memorandum of appeal to the adverse party and delayed payment of the appeal docketing fee are not jurisdictional defects that automatically render the labor arbiter's decision final and executory; the NLRC may give due course to the appeal in the broader interest of justice, particularly where the appeal has merit and the appellant is a dismissed employee who may be considered a pauper litigant.

C.W. Tan Mfg. employed Angelino Brimon, a member of Associated Labor Unions, at a plant where Federico Javier served as Plant Superintendent and Jaime So as Plant Manager. Proceedings before labor arbiters and the NLRC are governed by the Labor Code, Article 221 of which directs that technical rules of evidence shall not control and that all reasonable means be used to ascertain the facts speedily and objectively. The NLRC rules then required an appeal memorandum under oath with proof of service and payment of the appeal fee, with a P25.00 filing fee under Section 12 of the 1975 NLRC Rules.

C.W. Tan Mfg. employed Angelino Brimon, a member of Associated Labor Unions, with Federico Javier as Plant Superintendent and Jaime So as Plant Manager. On March 2, 1982, Brimon sought a one-half day leave of absence from 1:00 to 5:00 P.M. According to Brimon, his immediate supervisor and So approved the leave. According to petitioners, when So asked whether Brimon had secured Javier's permission, Brimon answered no even though his request for leave had been denied; when he reported the next day, he was told to explain why he had lied and instead allegedly said, "Wala akong pakialam kay Dick Javier."

On March 3, 1982, Brimon reported for work and alleged that Javier called him to the administrative office and handed him his salary and termination papers. The termination memorandum stated that management had concluded to terminate his employment due to undesirable attitude and intolerable violation of company rules and regulations, listing the following violations: (a) a five-day suspension for trying to coerce and threaten co-workers to cut down production output for personal motive; (b) gross negligence causing unreasonable loss of P800.00 in raw materials and labor, with damaged bathtubs thrown to trash; and (c) loss of respect to his superior, causing grievous insult, and trying to instigate misunderstanding between the Plant Manager and the Plant Superintendent. The termination was effective March 4, 1982.

On May 2, 1982, Associated Labor Union and Brimon filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioners. The labor arbiter found that the dismissal was for a valid cause and that Brimon was afforded due process. On review, the NLRC found that Brimon had been arbitrarily dismissed without the benefit of a formal investigation.

• Perfection of Appeal: Petitioners maintained that private respondent failed to perfect his appeal on time because he did not furnish a copy of the memorandum of appeal to the adverse party and did not pay the docketing fee within the reglementary period.
• Finality of Labor Arbiter's Decision: Petitioners argued that the labor arbiter's decision had become final and executory and that the NLRC had no authority to set it aside.
• Delayed Payment Distinction: Petitioners emphasized that in Del Rosario the delayed payment of the appeal fee occurred during the pendency of the appeal before the NLRC, whereas in this case payment was made only after the petition was filed in the Supreme Court, more than five years after the appeal.
• Merits Not Questioned: Petitioners did not question the merits of the NLRC decision but insisted on the finality of the labor arbiter's decision.

• Perfection of Appeal — Copy of Memorandum: Whether failure to furnish a copy of the memorandum of appeal to the adverse party within the reglementary period is jurisdictional and renders the labor arbiter's decision final and executory.
• Perfection of Appeal — Docketing Fee: Whether failure to pay the appeal docketing fee within the reglementary period is jurisdictional and renders the labor arbiter's decision final and executory.
• NLRC Authority: Whether the NLRC had authority to set aside the labor arbiter's decision and give due course to the appeal despite the procedural lapses.

• Perfection of Appeal — Copy of Memorandum: No. The failure to furnish a copy is not a jurisdictional defect but a mere formal lapse; compliance even beyond the period allows the appeal to be given due course.
• Perfection of Appeal — Docketing Fee: No. The failure to pay the appeal docketing fee confers a directory, not mandatory, power to dismiss; under the circumstances, the delayed payment did not bar the appeal.
• NLRC Authority: Yes. The NLRC could set aside the labor arbiter's decision because technical rules are not binding in labor proceedings and the appeal had merit.

• Perfection of Appeal — Copy of Memorandum: Section 3, Rule IX required the appeal to be under oath, contain the memorandum of appeal and proof of service, and be considered perfected only upon filing after payment of the required appeal fee. Private respondent filed the memorandum within the reglementary period but failed to furnish a copy to the adverse party; he promptly furnished a copy when his attention was called to the omission. The omission is not a jurisdictional defect but a mere formal lapse, as ruled in several cases. When the requirement was complied with although beyond the period of appeal, the appeal should be given due course.
• Perfection of Appeal — Docketing Fee: Private respondent failed to pay the required filing fee within the reglementary period and paid only after the case was elevated to the Supreme Court. Del Rosario & Sons Logging Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC held that failure to pay the appeal docketing fee confers a directory and not a mandatory power to dismiss an appeal, and that the power must be exercised with sound discretion and circumspection considering all attendant circumstances. Acda vs. Minister of Labor held that payment of the appeal fee is essential in perfecting an appeal, but where the fee was paid belatedly, the broader interest of justice and the objective of deciding the case on the merits demanded that the appeal be given due course. Petitioners noted that the delayed payment here occurred after more than five years and after the petition was filed in the Supreme Court, unlike in Del Rosario; the filing fee under Section 12 of the 1975 NLRC Rules was only P25.00. Article 221 of the Labor Code provides that technical rules are not binding, and Brimon, as a dismissed employee, could be considered a pauper litigant whose failure to pay the nominal docketing fee should be treated with understanding and compassion. The appeal was therefore properly given due course.
• NLRC Authority: Petitioners did not question the merits of the NLRC decision. The NLRC found a cogent basis that Brimon was arbitrarily dismissed without the benefit of a formal investigation. Under Article 221, technical rules are not binding in labor proceedings, and the NLRC properly set aside the labor arbiter's decision and reinstated Brimon. The award of backwages was modified so that it shall not exceed three years.

• Technical rules not binding in labor proceedings — Article 221 of the Labor Code provides that in proceedings before the Commission or Labor Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling, and the Commission and Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts speedily and objectively without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, in the interest of due process. The Court applied this principle to excuse the procedural lapses in perfecting the appeal.
• Failure to furnish copy of appeal memorandum is not jurisdictional — The failure of the appellant to furnish a copy of the appeal memorandum to the adverse party is not a jurisdictional defect but a mere formal lapse. If the requirement is later complied with, even beyond the period of appeal, the appeal should be given due course.
• Non-payment of appeal docketing fee: directory power to dismiss — The failure to pay the appeal docketing fee confers a directory, not a mandatory, power to dismiss an appeal. That power must be exercised with sound discretion and with great circumspection considering all attendant circumstances. Although payment of the appeal fee is essential in perfecting an appeal, a belated payment may be excused in the broader interest of justice and to decide the case on the merits.
• Pauper litigant consideration for dismissed employees — A dismissed employee may be considered a pauper litigant, and the failure to pay a nominal docketing fee within the reglementary period should be treated with understanding and compassion.
• Backwages cap — The Court modified the NLRC award so that the payment of backwages shall not exceed the period of three years.

• "The failure of the appellant (private respondent) to furnish a copy of the appeal memorandum to the adverse party is not a jurisdictional defect, but is a mere formal lapse as ruled by this court in several instances." — This states the ratio on the copy requirement: the omission does not defeat the appeal and may be cured.
• "the failure to pay the appeal docketing fee confers a directory and not a mandatory power to dismiss an appeal and such power must be exercised with a sound discretion and with a great deal of circumspection considering all attendant circumstances." — This is the Court's adopted rule from Del Rosario on the non-payment of the docketing fee.
• "Although it is obvious that private respondent failed to pay the required docketing fee for an unreasonable length of time, nevertheless this Court finds that under the circumstances of the case and considering the merit of the appeal, the greater interest of justice will be served by giving due course to the appeal despite the much delayed payment of the docketing fee." — This explains why the delayed payment was excused in this case.
• "ART. 221. Technical rules not binding. - In any proceeding before the Commission or any of the Labor Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process." — This is the statutory basis for relaxing technical rules in labor proceedings.

• Del Rosario & Sons Logging Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC, 136 SCRA 669 — The Court relied on this precedent for the rule that failure to pay the appeal docketing fee confers a directory, not mandatory, power to dismiss, and that the power must be exercised with sound discretion and circumspection. Petitioners attempted to distinguish it on the timing of payment, but the Court still applied its principle.
• Acda vs. Minister of Labor, 119 SCRA 306 (1982) — The Court acknowledged that this case held payment of the appeal fee is essential in perfecting an appeal, but ruled that where the fee was paid belatedly, the broader interest of justice and the objective of deciding on the merits required giving due course to the appeal.
• Gaerlan, Sr. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 132 SCRA 402 (1984); Pagdonsalan vs. NLRC, 127 SCRA 463 (1984); RJL Martinez Fishing Corporation vs. NLRC, 127 SCRA 454 (1984); Carnation Philippines Employees Labor Union-FFW vs. NLRC, 125 SCRA 42 (1983); and J.D. Magpayo Customs Brokerage Corp. vs. NLRC, 118 SCRA 645 (1982) — Cited collectively for the rule that failure to furnish a copy of the appeal memorandum to the adverse party is not a jurisdictional defect but a mere formal lapse.

• Section 3, Rule IX, Implementing Regulations — Requires the appeal to be under oath, contain the memorandum of appeal and proof of service, and be considered perfected only upon filing after payment of the required appeal fee. The private respondent failed to furnish a copy and to pay the fee; the copy omission was held non-jurisdictional.
• Article 221, Labor Code — Provides that technical rules are not binding in proceedings before the Commission or Labor Arbiters, who shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts speedily and objectively without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, in the interest of due process. The Court applied this to justify giving due course to the appeal despite procedural lapses.
• Section 12, 1975 NLRC Rules — Provided a filing fee of P25.00. The Court considered the nominal amount and private respondent's status as a dismissed employee in treating the delayed payment with understanding and compassion. The text notes that the amount was raised to P70.00 under Section 4 of the 1986 NLRC Rules.

Narvasa, Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.