You are on page 1of 4

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Department of Labor and Employment


NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City

JOSE,
Complainant,

- versus - NLRC Case No.


For: Illegal Dismissal

MAKUNAT CORPORATION,
Respondent. Hon. Labor Arbiter Carpio
x-------------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER

(FOR THE COMPLAINANT)

The COMPLAINANT, by the undersigned counsel, respectfully submits to this

Honorable Commission this Position Paper, to wit:

THE PARTIES

The Complainant is JOSE, of legal age, Filipino, and with address at 88 Mapayapa

Street, Brgy. Tatalon, Quezon City where he could be served with summons and other

legal processes of this Honorable Commission.

The Respondent is MAKUNAT CORPORATION, a domestic corporation engaged in the

business of meat processing with its principal business address at 9 San Pedro Street,

Brgy.San Miguel, Pasig City where it could be served with summons and other legal

processes of this Honorable Commission.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

On January 10, 2010, Honorable Labor Arbiter Carpio rendered judgment rendering that

Jose was illegally terminated, ordering his reinstatement, payment of backwages of

500,000 Php, 13th month pay of 50,000 Php, service incentive leave of 30,000 Php,

holiday pay of 10,000Php, and 10% attorneys fee. The decision was received by Atty.

Mabagal, counsel of Makunat Corporation (employer of Jose), on January 20, 2010.

1
Makunat Corporation, through its counsel, filed an appeal on February 12, 2010,

accompanied by a motion to reduce bond and posted a cash bond of 25,000 Php.

ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ADVERSE PARTY IS PERFECTED.

ARGUMENTS

Appeal filed by the adverse party

does not conform with the statutory

requirement of 10-day reglementary period

to appeal.

Article 223 (now Article 229) of the Labor Code governs appeals from, and the execution

of the Labor Arbiters decision. Pertinently, paragraph 7, Article 223 (229) of the Labor

Code provides:

xxxxx

The decision of the Commission shall be final and executory after

ten (ten) calendar days from the receipt thereof by the parties.

(emphasis supplied)

xxxxx

For purposes of computing period of appeal, the same shall be counted from

receipt of the decision, award or order by the counsel of record of the party, and

not from the receipt thereof by the party himself. (Curaza v. NLRC, et al., G. R. No.

102985, Marech 15, 2001) (emphasis supplied)

There is no dispute that Atty. Mabagal received a copy of the Labor Arbiters Decision on

January 20, 2010. Thus, pursuant to Article 223 of the Labor Code and Section 1, Rule

VI of the 2005 Revised Rules of the NLRC, adverse party through its counsel had only

until January 30, 2010, the 10th calendar day from January 10, 2010, within which to file

2
an appeal .However, for undue and unreasonable delay, the counsel of the adverse

party only filed an appeal to this Honorable Commission on February 12, 2010, 13 days

late.

By way of exception, unintended lapses are disregarded so as to give due course to

appeals filed beyond the reglementary period on the basis of strong and compelling

reasons, such as serving the ends of justice and preventing a grave miscarriage

thereof. The purpose behind the limitation of the period of appeal is to avoid

an unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies.

(Republic Cement Corporation v. Guinmapang, G. R. No. 168190, August 24, 2009 citing

Manaya v. Alabang Country Club Incorporated, G.R. No. 168988, 19 June 2007, 525

SCRA 140; Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Angara, G.R. No. 142937,

15 November 2005) (emphasis supplied)

In Republic Cement Corporation v. Guinmapang (August 24, 2009), the Court gave

credence to Guinmapangs explanation that the appeal was filed one day late because

Guinmapangs counsel suffered from an asthma attack a few days before the last day for

the filing of the appeal. The Court added that the delay of one day was not deliberate.

From the foregoing, the appeal made by the adverse party clearly does not conform to

the statutory requirement of 10-day period to appeal. Thus, the appeal dated on January

20, 2010, has lapsed on the reglementary period, is not perfected. Therefore, the

decision of the Labor Arbiter is final and executory.

RELIEFS SOUGHT

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable

Office to dismiss the appeal filed by the adverse party for utter lack of jurisdiction and a

writ of execution of Labor Arbiters judgment be issued in favor of the Complainant.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

3
Quezon City, December 17, 2016.

The Law Firm of:


MONTEMAYOR LAW OFFICE
No. 86 Quezon Avenue,
Brgy. Bagong Pagasa, Quezon City

By:
ATTY. ELIZA M. MONTEMAYOR
Counsel for the Respondent
PTR NO. 4560388/01-03-11/Q.C.
IBP NO. 801459/01-03-11/Q.C.
Roll of Attorneys No. 36178
MCLE Compliance No. III-0017581
June 01, 2013

Copy furnished:

ATTY. JUAN C. DELA CRUZ


No 159 Maysan Road
Bgy. Malinta, Valenzuela City

EXPLANATION

Copy of this Position Paper was sent by registered mail to the adverse party, instead of
personal service as required by the rules, because of the lack of personnel on the part of
the undersigned counsel to effect such personal service.

ATTY. ELIZA M. MONTEMAYOR