Firestone Tire Company vs. Lariosa GR no.

70479 February 27, 1987 FACTS: Carlos Lariosa work in Firestone as factory worker. When he was about to leave thecompany premises, he was frisked by security guard because while his personal bag wasinspected, there were 16 wool flannel swabs all belonging to the company. As a result, he was terminated by firestone on the ground of stealing company propertyand loss of trust. The company also files criminal complaint for attempted theft. Lariosa, onother hand, filed a case for illegal dismissal Labor Arbiter found the dismissal just bust theNLRC reversed the decision.Firestone contends that NLRC erred in not dismissing Lariosas appeal for being late. ISSUE:Whether or not the appeal filed by Lariosa n NLRC was filed late. RULING: Lariosa filed his appeal on June 7, 1984 or after the lapse of 14 days from the notice of the decision of the labor arbiter.Under the Labor Code, the reglementary period for which an appeal from decision of labor arbiter may be filed to NLRC is within a period of ten days.The ten-day period has to be interpreted to mean as ten calendar days and not ten workingdays

Gonzaga vs David GR no. L-14858 December 29, 1960 FACTS: Mariano Gonzales, as owner of a cargo truck and passenger bus, registers the vehiclesand pays the first installment for registration fees due on 1957. To cover the second installmentfor registration fees, he remitted to the provincial treasurer of Cagayan, by registered mail, theamount of P500.00, under postal money orders.The postal cancellation mark on the envelope containing the remittance bears the date August 31, 1957. The registrar of the Motor Vehicle Office ruled that pursuant to Revised Motor Vehicle Law, the second installment for registration fees was payable on or before the lastworking day of August. The last working day of August 1957 was Friday, August 30, 1957. Andconsequently, the remittance of Gonzaga which bears cancellation mark dated August 31, 1957was made beyond time fixed by law. ISSUE:Whether or not the remittance for second installment of registration fees was made beyond thetime fixed by law. RULING: The Motor Vehicle Office in Cagayan had no office on Saturday, August 31, 1957.However, it was immaterial the last working day contemplated in the

Revised Motor Vehicle Lawshould not necessarily mean the last working day of Motor Vehicle Office. The fact that August31, 1957 was declared a special public holiday did not have the effect of making the precedingday, August 30, the last day for paying registration fees without penalty.Moreover, under the said law, for payment of registration fees by mail, the date of cancellation of the postage stamps of the envelope containing the remittance is considered thedate of application

Rural Bank of Caloocan vs CA GR no. L-32116 April 21, 1981 FACTS: Maxima Castro, accompanied by Severino Valencia, went to Rural Bank of Caloocan toapply for industrial loan. The loan was secured by a real estate mortgage on Castors house,after that, the bank approved the loan of P3000. Valencia obtained from the bank an equalamount of loan affixing Castros signature as co-maker without its knowledge. The sheriff then sent a notice announcing the property would be sold at public auction tosatisfy the obligation. Upon request, the auction sale which was scheduled for March 10, 1961was postponed for April 10, 1961. But April 10 was subsequently declared a special holiday sothe sheriff sold the property on public auction on April 11, 1961 which was the next succeedingbusiness day following the special holiday.Castro prayed for the annulment of sale alleging that there was fraud on the part of Valencias who induced her to sign as co-maker of a promissory note since she is a 70-year oldwidow who cannot read and write and it was only when she receive the notice of sheriff, shelearned that the encumbrance on her property was P6000 and not for P3000. ISSUE:Whether or not the public auction sale was null and void for transferring the date already set bylaw. RULING: The sale is null and void for not having in accordance with Act 3135 which states thatthat a notice shall be given by posting notices of sale for not less than 20 days in at least 3public places and if the property is worth more than P400 such notice shall also be published for in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality or city once a week for 3 consecutiveweeks.The pretermission of a holiday applies only where the day, or the last day for doing anyact required or permitted by law falls on a holiday or when the last day of a given period for doing an act falls on holiday. It does not apply to a day fixed by an office or officer of thegovernment for an act to be done.Since April 10, 1961 was not the day or the last day set by law for the extrajudicialforeclosure sale, nor the last day of a given period but a date fixed by deputy sheriff, the salecannot be legally made on

the next succeeding business day without the notice of the sale inaccordance with Act no. 3135