G.R. NO. 148470 - LOPEZ DELA ROSA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND GLORIA DELA ROSA LOPEZ, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER VICENTE LAYAWEN AND ARIEL CHAVEZ.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, we find sufficient evidence to establish that complainant was illegally dismissed. Consequently, respondents are hereby directed to reinstate complainant to his former position without loss of seniority rights and benefits and to pay him his backwages from December 8, 1994 until his actual reinstatement which backwages up to the rendition of this decision, have amounted to: (PLEASE SEE ATTACHED COMPUTATION) [5] Likewise, respondents are ordered to pay complainant his salary from December 1 to 8, 1994 and his 13th month pay for that year plus attorneys fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary awards. All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit. [6] Petitioners appealed the decision of respondent Labor Arbiter to respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) filing an Appeal with Memorandum of Appeal with Prayer to Reduce Bond on 12 July 1999. Petitioners posted a surety bond in the amount of P100,000.00 on 16 August 1999. On 29 November 1999, respondent NLRC issued a resolution [7] dismissing the appeal for failure to perfect the appeal within the statutory period, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents appeal is hereby DISMISSED for failure to perfect appeal within the statutory period. The Motion to Reduce Bond is likewise DISMISSED for lack of merit. On 25 January 2000, the Deputy Executive Clerk of the Third Division of the NLRC issued an entry of judgment and forwarded the records of the case to the arbitration branch of origin for the execution of judgment. [8] At the execution conference at the arbitration branch, petitioners filed a Manifestation and Motion asking that the execution conference be held in abeyance in view of the pending Motion for Reconsideration which has not been acted upon by the NLRC. Thus, the Labor Arbiter issued an order elevating the records to the NLRC for appropriate action. Respondent NLRC, in its resolution dated June 30, 2000, explained: Before the Commission now is respondents (sic) Opposition and Manifestation to Resolve their Motion for Reconsideration. A scrutiny of the records indicate (sic) that respondents received a copy of our Resolution on December 20, 1999. ( Rollo , p. 452). Respondents alleges (sic) that it (sic) had filed a Motion for Reconsideration on January 3, 2000. However, records indicate otherwise. A check with the records show (sic) that no motion for reconsideration has been filed with the Docket and Records Section of the Commission. Furthermore, in the motion for reconsideration allegedly filed with this office and submitted by respondents as Annex A, the official stamp of the Docket section of the Commission is absent. Hence, we cannot give due course to the Motion for Reconsideration. [9] Thus, it disposed of the case as follows: WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Motion for Reconsideration cannot be given due course. Let the records herein be REMANDED to Arbitration Branch of o