Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
that the private respondent was estopped from questioning the legality of
his termination as he already voluntarily and freely received his
termination pay. The POEA, on September 27,1984, rendered a decision
adverse to petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads:
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 71177 February 29, 1988
ERECTORS, INC., petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
AND DANILO CRIS, respondents.
SARMIENTO, J.:
This case should not have reached this Tribunal. It should have, in fact,
been terminated three years ago but for the petitioner's counsels who
had the temerity to cite a non-existent law with the obvious intention of
delaying the proceedings if not outrightly evading financial responsibility
under the law. This actuation, indeed, is flagrant dishonesty. We cannot
let it pass.
But before we proceed, a recital of the background of the controversy is
in order.
The private respondent, Danilo Cris, a contract worker as Earthworks
Engineer in Taif, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, filed the case with the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) on February 27,
1984 for the illegal termination of his contract of employment with the
petitioner herein, Erectors, Inc. The petitioner, as a defense, contended
The POEA was created only on May 1, 1982 by virtue of Executive Order
No. 797. Pursuant to the said Executive Order, the 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 These 1984 Rules were superseded on May 21, 1985 by the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.
For the reason that the petitioner's appeal with the NLRC was filed on
November 9,1984, the 1984 Rules should govern. And this was precisely
what the petitioner insisted upon the POEA rules obtaining in 1984
must be applied. 5 Yet therein, it is clear that the period for perfecting an
appeal or a Motion for Reconsideration is ten (10) calendar days. The
pertinent rule on the matter is found in Book VII, Rule 5, of the 1984
Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment (POEA/MOLE) to wit:
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
has the power to amend or alter in any material sense whatever the law
itself unequivocably specifies or fixes." 8
There is, thus, no doubt that the law mandates that the period for filing a
motion for reconsideration or appeal with the NLRC is ten (10) calendar
days and not ten (10) working days.
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.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is hereby
DISMISSED and the assailed Resolution of the public respondent, dated
December 28, 1984, AFFIRMED. The Temporary Restraining Order
issued by this Court on July 10, 1985 is hereby LIFTED. The counsels for
the petitioner are also admonished for foisting a non-existent rule with the
warning that repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with
more severely. With triple costs against the petitioner.
This Decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.
SO ORDERED.
Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Paras and Padilla, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Rendered by POEA Administrator Patricia A. Sto.
Tomas.
3 Rollo, 4.
6 No. L-58011-12, July 20,1982,115 SCRA 347.
4 Rollo, 4.
7 Art. 223 of the Labor Code.
5 In a resolutions dated October 20 and December 16,
1987, we ordered the petitioner to furnish us with the
source of the rules appearing on page 3 of the petition.
The petitioner, in compliance with the resolution
8 Id.