Erectors, Inc. vs. NLRC

Under the 1984 POEA Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment, a motion for reconsideration and/or appeal from a POEA decision must be filed within ten (10) calendar days from receipt; the period is not ten (10) working days. A motion filed fifteen calendar days after receipt is late, and the NLRC correctly dismissed it.

Danilo Cris was a contract worker employed as Earthworks Engineer in Taif, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia by Erectors, Inc. The POEA was created on May 1, 1982 by Executive Order No. 797, and pursuant thereto the then Minister of Labor promulgated on September 5, 1983 the POEA Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment, effective January 1, 1984; those rules were superseded on May 21, 1985 by the POEA Rules & Regulations. The 1984 Rules supplied the procedural framework for motions for reconsideration and appeals from POEA decisions at the time relevant to this dispute.

Danilo Cris was a contract worker employed as Earthworks Engineer in Taif, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia by Erectors, Inc. On February 27, 1984, Cris filed a case with the POEA against Erectors, Inc. for illegal termination of his contract of employment. Erectors, Inc. defended that Cris was estopped from questioning the legality of his termination because he had voluntarily and freely received his termination pay.

The POEA rendered a decision on September 27, 1984 adverse to Erectors, Inc. It ordered Erectors, Inc. and Societe Auxillaire D'Enterprises (S.A.E.) jointly and severally to pay Cris $7,166.66, or its equivalent in Philippine currency at the time of actual payment, representing unpaid salaries for the unexpired term of his contract. Erectors, Inc. received a copy of the decision on October 25, 1984.

Fifteen days later, on November 9, 1984, Erectors, Inc. filed a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC. The motion was treated as an appeal. In the motion, petitioner's counsel asserted that although fifteen calendar days had elapsed between October 25 and November 9, 1984, only ten working days had passed because five days were non-working or legal holidays: October 26, 1984 (Saturday), October 27, 1984 (Sunday), November 1, 1984 (All Saint's Day), November 3, 1984 (Saturday), and November 4, 1984 (Sunday). Petitioner cited Rule XXIV, section 1, and Rule XXV, section 2, of the 1984 POEA rules and procedures, which purportedly provided for a ten-working-day period.

The NLRC dismissed the motion/appeal for having been filed out of time. The petitioner then sought relief from the Supreme Court, alleging that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion and insisting that the 1984 POEA rules applied and allowed ten working days. The POEA decision had been adverse to Erectors, Inc., and the NLRC's dismissal rested on its finding that the motion/appeal was late.

• Estoppel: Petitioner contended before the POEA that private respondent was estopped from questioning the legality of his termination because he already voluntarily and freely received his termination pay.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner alleged that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case and affirmed that the motion for reconsideration or appeal was seasonably filed.
• Computation of Period: Petitioner argued that although there were fifteen calendar days between October 25 and November 9, 1984, there were only ten working days because five days were non-working or legal holidays (October 26, October 27, November 1, November 3, and November 4, 1984).
• Alleged 1984 POEA Rules: Petitioner cited Rule XXIV, section 1, and Rule XXV, section 2, of the 1984 POEA rules and procedures, which purportedly provided that decisions become final after ten working days and that a motion for reconsideration may be filed within ten working days.
• Applicability of 1984 Rules: Petitioner insisted that the POEA rules obtaining in 1984 must be applied because its appeal was filed on November 9, 1984.

• Applicability of the 1984 POEA Rules: Whether the 1984 POEA Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment governed the petitioner's motion for reconsideration/appeal filed on November 9, 1984.
• Period for Filing: Whether the period for filing a motion for reconsideration or appeal from a POEA decision under the 1984 POEA Rules is ten calendar days or ten working days.
• Timeliness of Appeal/Motion for Reconsideration: Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's motion for reconsideration/appeal as filed out of time.
• Sanctions Against Counsel: Whether petitioner's counsels should be sanctioned for citing a non-existent rule.

• Applicability of the 1984 POEA Rules: Yes. Because the appeal was filed on November 9, 1984, the 1984 Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment governed; they took effect on January 1, 1984 and were superseded only on May 21, 1985.
• Period for Filing: Ten calendar days. Book VII, Rule 5, section 1 of the 1984 POEA Rules requires a motion for reconsideration and/or appeal within ten calendar days from receipt; the alleged ten-working-day provisions do not exist.
• Timeliness of Appeal/Motion for Reconsideration: No grave abuse of discretion. The motion was filed on November 9, 1984, fifteen calendar days after receipt on October 25, 1984, and was therefore late; the NLRC correctly dismissed it.
• Sanctions Against Counsel: Yes. Counsels were admonished for foisting a non-existent rule, warned that repetition would be dealt with more severely, and triple costs were imposed against petitioner.

• Applicability of the 1984 POEA Rules: The POEA was created on May 1, 1982 by Executive Order No. 797. Pursuant to that Executive Order, then Minister of Labor Blas F. Ople promulgated on September 5, 1983 the POEA Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment, which took effect on January 1, 1984. These 1984 Rules were superseded on May 21, 1985 by the POEA Rules & Regulations. Because petitioner's appeal with the NLRC was filed on November 9, 1984, the 1984 Rules governed, and petitioner itself insisted that the 1984 POEA rules must be applied.
• Period for Filing: Book VII, Rule 5, section 1 of the 1984 Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment provides that the aggrieved party may, within ten calendar days from receipt of the decision, order, or resolution, file a motion for reconsideration specifying in detail the particular errors and objections; otherwise, the decision shall be final and executory, and the motion shall be treated as an appeal. The rule is expressed in language so simple and precise that there is no necessity to interpret it. Petitioner cited Rule XXIV, section 1, and Rule XXV, section 2, as providing a ten-working-day period, but these cited rules do not exist in any law or rules relative to the POEA. The Court ordered petitioner to furnish the source of the rules, and petitioner manifested that the source was the 1984 Rules and Procedures of the POEA but did not submit a copy. In Vir-Jen Shipping & Marine Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, the Court construed the ten-day period for filing appeals from decisions of Labor Arbiters or compulsory arbitrators as ten calendar days, with the rationale that labor cases must be promptly disposed of; long periods can be taken advantage of more by management than by labor, and delay gives employers opportunity to prepare defenses and wear out the efforts and resources of workers. The POEA rule is consonant with that ruling. Not even the Secretary of Labor has the power to amend or alter in any material sense what the law unequivocally specifies or fixes. Thus, the period is ten calendar days, not ten working days.
• Timeliness of Appeal/Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioner received the POEA decision on October 25, 1984 and filed its motion for reconsideration/appeal on November 9, 1984. That is fifteen calendar days later. The five non-working or legal holidays do not extend the period because the rule expressly fixes ten calendar days. The motion was therefore filed out of time, and the NLRC correctly dismissed it for having been filed out of time. No grave abuse of discretion was committed.
• Sanctions Against Counsel: The counsels for petitioner deliberately tried to mislead the Court by citing a non-existent law, with the obvious intention of delaying the proceedings or evading financial responsibility under the law. This actuation is flagrant dishonesty and cannot be allowed to pass. Accordingly, the counsels were admonished for foisting a non-existent rule, warned that repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely, and triple costs were imposed against petitioner.

• Ten-Calendar-Day Period for Appeals/Motions for Reconsideration from POEA Decisions — Under Book VII, Rule 5, section 1 of the 1984 POEA Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment, an aggrieved party must file a motion for reconsideration and/or appeal within ten calendar days from receipt of the decision, order, or resolution; the motion is treated as an appeal. The period is not ten working days. Applied: petitioner's filing on November 9, 1984, fifteen calendar days after receipt on October 25, 1984, was late.
• Prompt Disposition of Labor Cases — The short ten-day period for appeals in labor cases is designed to ensure prompt disposition. Long periods can be taken advantage of more by management than by labor; delay gives employers opportunity to prepare defenses and wear out workers' efforts and resources. The Court applied this rationale in following Vir-Jen Shipping & Marine Services, Inc. vs. NLRC.
• No Power of the Secretary of Labor to Amend or Alter the Law — The Secretary of Labor cannot amend or alter in any material sense what the law unequivocally specifies or fixes. Applied: the POEA rule's ten-calendar-day period was in consonance with the law and could not be replaced by a ten-working-day period.
• Candor to the Court; Sanctions for Citing Non-Existent Rules — Counsel's citation of a non-existent rule to delay proceedings or evade financial responsibility is flagrant dishonesty and subject to sanction. Applied: petitioner's counsels were admonished, warned, and triple costs were imposed.

• "Section 1. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR APPEAL. The aggrieved party may, within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the decision, order or resolution file a motion for reconsideration which shall specify in detail the particular errors and objections, otherwise the decision shall be final and executory. Such motion for reconsideration shall be treated as an appeal as provided in this Rule otherwise the same shall not be entertained." — This is the controlling rule under the 1984 POEA Rules; it establishes the ten-calendar-day period and the treatment of a motion for reconsideration as an appeal.
• "The above rule is expressed in a language so simple and precise that there is no necessity to interpret it." — The Court used this to reject petitioner's attempt to read a ten-working-day period into the rule.
• "For "not even the Secretary of Labor has the power to amend or alter in any material sense whatever the law itself unequivocably specifies or fixes."" — This quotation underscores that the ten-day period fixed by law cannot be materially altered by the Secretary of Labor or by the POEA rules.
• "It is, therefore, obvious that the counsels for the petitioner deliberately tried to mislead this Court if only to suit their client's ends. On this regard, said counsels have much explaining to do." — This passage supports the Court's admonition and triple costs against petitioner's counsels for citing a non-existent rule.

• Vir-Jen Shipping & Marine Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, No. L-58011-12, July 20, 1982, 115 SCRA 347 — The Court cited this as the controlling precedent construing the ten-day period for filing appeals from decisions of Labor Arbiters or compulsory arbitrators as ten calendar days, and for its rationale that labor cases must be promptly disposed of. The Court followed it in holding that the POEA rule's ten-calendar-day period was correct.

• Book VII, Rule 5, Section 1, 1984 Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment (POEA/MOLE) — Requires a motion for reconsideration and/or appeal within ten calendar days from receipt of the decision, order, or resolution; the motion must specify errors and objections, otherwise the decision is final and executory; the motion is treated as an appeal. Applied to hold petitioner's November 9, 1984 filing late.
• Executive Order No. 797 — Created the POEA on May 1, 1982. Pursuant to it, the POEA Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment were promulgated on September 5, 1983 and took effect on January 1, 1984. Applied to determine that the 1984 Rules governed the appeal filed on November 9, 1984.
• Article 223, Labor Code — Cited in the Court's footnote as the law construed in Vir-Jen Shipping & Marine Services, Inc. vs. NLRC regarding the ten-day period for filing appeals from decisions of Labor Arbiters or compulsory arbitrators. The Court used this to support the ten-calendar-day interpretation.
• Alleged Rule XXIV, section 1, and Rule XXV, section 2, 1984 POEA Rules — Petitioner cited these as providing a ten-working-day period for finality and motions for reconsideration. The Court found that these provisions do not exist in any law or rules relative to the POEA.

Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Paras, and Padilla, JJ., concur.