Rizal Empire Insurance Group vs. NLRC

A Labor Arbiter's decision becomes final and executory unless appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission within ten calendar days from receipt, with no extension of that period allowed. Because the employer received the decision on April 1, 1985 but sought extension on April 11, 1985 and filed its memorandum of appeal only on April 22, 1985, the appeal was filed out of time and the decision could no longer be appealed.

Rizal Empire Insurance Group was the employer of private respondent Rogelio R. Coria, hired first as a casual and later as a regular employee subject to the company's General Information, Office Behavior and Other Rules and Regulations. Appeals from Labor Arbiter decisions were governed by Rule VIII of the Revised Rules of the National Labor Relations Commission, which imposed a ten-calendar-day appeal period and expressly prohibited any extension.

In August 1977, Rogelio R. Coria was hired by Rizal Empire Insurance Group as a casual employee at P10.00 a day. On January 1, 1978, he was made a regular employee as clerk-typist at P300.00 a month and was furnished a copy of the company's General Information, Office Behavior and Other Rules and Regulations. Later in the same year, without change in position-designation, he was transferred to the Claims Department with his salary increased to P450.00 a month. In 1980 he was transferred to the Underwriting Department at P580.00 a month plus cost of living allowance, until he was moved to the Fire Department as filing clerk, and in July 1983 he was made inspector of the Fire Division at P685.00 a month plus allowances and other benefits.

On October 15, 1983, Coria was dismissed from work allegedly on the grounds of tardiness and unexcused absences. Accordingly, he filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labor and Employment. In a Decision dated March 14, 1985, Labor Arbiter Teodorico L. Ruiz found him illegally dismissed and ordered reinstatement to his position with back wages.

The employer received a copy of the Labor Arbiter's decision on April 1, 1985. It filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum of Appeal on April 11, 1985 and filed the Memorandum of Appeal on April 22, 1985. Pursuant to the no-extension policy, the motion for extension was denied and the appeal was dismissed in the National Labor Relations Commission Resolution dated November 15, 1985 for having been filed out of time, leading to the instant petition.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion and Liberal Construction: Petitioner argued that respondent Commission committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in arbitrarily dismissing petitioners' appeal on a technicality, invoking the Rules of Court provision on liberal construction of the Rules in the interest of substantial justice.

• Timeliness of Appeal and Finality: Whether the National Labor Relations Commission correctly dismissed petitioners' appeal as filed out of time, rendering the Labor Arbiter's decision final and executory.
• Illegal Dismissal on the Merits: Whether private respondent was illegally dismissed despite the alleged tardiness and unexcused absences.

• Timeliness of Appeal and Finality: Yes. The appeal was filed out of time, the ten-calendar-day period with no extension allowed having lapsed, so the Arbiter's decision had become final and executory and was no longer subject to appeal.
• Illegal Dismissal on the Merits: Yes. The dismissal was illegal, the employee's consistent promotions indicating highly efficient service that outweighed occasional lapses in punctuality and attendance.

• Timeliness of Appeal and Finality: Under Section 1(a), Rule VIII of the Revised Rules of the National Labor Relations Commission, decisions or orders of a Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed within ten calendar days from receipt of notice, and under Section 6 no motion or request for extension of that period shall be entertained. The employer received the March 14, 1985 decision on April 1, 1985, moved for extension only on April 11, 1985, and filed the memorandum of appeal on April 22, 1985, plainly beyond the period. The Rules of Court provision on liberal construction was inapplicable because the NLRC Rules were clear and explicit and left no room for interpretation, and administrative regulations enacted to interpret the law enforced by the agency have the force of law and command great respect.
• Illegal Dismissal on the Merits: Even on the merits, the Labor Arbiter's ruling was correct. The consistent promotions in rank and salary showed private respondent must have been a highly efficient worker who should have been retained despite occasional lapses in punctuality and attendance, since perfection cannot be demanded.

• Finality of Labor Arbiter decisions; strict ten-day appeal period with no extension — A Labor Arbiter's decision or order becomes final and executory unless appealed to the Commission within ten calendar days from receipt of notice, and no motion or request for extension of the period to perfect an appeal shall be entertained. Applied here, the April 1, 1985 receipt with an April 11, 1985 extension motion and April 22, 1985 appeal rendered the March 14, 1985 decision final and unappealable.
• Force of administrative regulations — Administrative regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies to interpret the law they are entrusted to enforce have the force of law and are entitled to great respect. Applied here to sustain the Revised Rules of the National Labor Relations Commission and its no-extension policy against the plea for liberal construction under the Rules of Court.
• Retention despite minor lapses where efficiency shown — Consistent promotions in rank and salary indicate highly efficient service warranting retention despite occasional lapses in punctuality and attendance, as perfection cannot be demanded. Applied here to uphold the finding of illegal dismissal for tardiness and unexcused absences.

• "Decision or orders of a labor Arbiter shall be final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both of the parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of notice thereof." — States the controlling appeal-period rule that rendered the Labor Arbiter's decision final and executory.
• "No motion or request for extension of the period within which to perfect an appeal shall be entertained." — States the no-extension policy under which the employer's motion for extension was denied and the late appeal dismissed.
• "Moreover, it is an elementary rule in administrative law that administrative regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce, have the force of law, and are entitled to great respect (Espanol v. Philippine Veterans Administration, 137 SCRA 314 [1985])." — Provides the doctrinal basis for enforcing the Revised NLRC Rules strictly rather than applying liberal construction.
• "Perfection cannot after all be demanded." — Caps the merits discussion sustaining illegal dismissal despite tardiness and absences in light of consistent promotions.

• Espanol vs. Philippine Veterans Administration, 137 SCRA 314 [1985] — Cited as authority that administrative regulations and policies interpreting the law enforced by the agency have the force of law and are entitled to great respect, supporting strict application of the NLRC appeal rules.

• Section 1(a), Rule VIII, Revised Rules of the National Labor Relations Commission — Provides that Labor Arbiter decisions or orders are final and executory unless appealed within ten calendar days from receipt; applied to compute untimeliness from April 1, 1985 receipt to April 11 and April 22, 1985 filings.
• Section 6, Rule VIII, Revised Rules of the National Labor Relations Commission — Provides that no motion or request for extension of the period to perfect an appeal shall be entertained; applied to deny the motion for extension and dismiss the late appeal.

Fernan (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur. Padilla, J., took no part.