G.R. No. 168988 - FERNANDO G. MANAYA, VS. ALABANG COUNTRY CLUB INCORPORATED.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, complainant Fernando G. Manaya is hereby found to be a regularemployee of respondent Alabang Country Club, Inc., as aforediscussed. His dismissal from the service having been effected without just and valid cause and without the due observance of due process is hereby declared illegal. Consequently, respondent Alabang Country Club, Inc. is hereby ordered to reinstate complainant to his former position without loss of seniority rights and other benefits appurtenant thereto with full backwages in the partial amount of P160,724.48 as computed by Ms. Ma. Concepcion Manliclic and duly noted by Ms. Ma. Elena L. Estadilla, OIC-CEU, NCR-South Sector which computation has been made part of the records. Furthermore, respondent Alabang Country Club, Inc. and First Staffing Network Corporation are hereby ordered to pay complainant, jointly and severally the following amounts by way of the following: Service Incentive Leave 2,961.75 13 th Month Pay 15,401.10, and Attorney's fees of ten (10%) percent of the total monetary award herein adjudged due him, within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. [8] Respondent filed an Appeal with the NLRC which dismissed the same. [9] In a Resolution dated 30 August 2002, the NLRC held: PREMISES CONSIDERED, instant appeal from the Decision of November 20, 2000 is hereby DISMISSED for failure to perfect appeal within the statutory period of appeal. The Decision is now final and executory. [10] The NLRC found that respondent's counsel of record Atty. Angelina A. Mailon of Monsod, Valencia and Associates received a copy of the Labor Arbiter's Decision on or before 11 December 2000 as shown by the postal stamp or registry return card. [11] Said counsel did not file a withdrawal of appearance. Instead, a Memorandum of Appeal [12] dated 26 December 2000 was filed by the respondent's new counsel, Atty. Arizala of Tierra and Associates Law Office. Reckoned from 11 December 2000, the date of receipt of the Decision by respondent's previous counsel, the filing of the Memorandum of Appeal by its new counsel on 26 December 2000 was clearly made beyond the reglementary period. The NLRC held that the failure to perfect an appeal within the statutory period is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. The appeal having been belatedly filed, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter had become final and executory. [13] Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, [14] which the NLRC denied in a Resolution dated 30 October 2002. [15] The NLRC held that the decision of the Labor Arbiter has become final and executory on 28 November 2002; thus, Entry of Judgment, dated 8 January 2003 [16] was issued. Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari [17] under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals. In a Decision dated 9 May 2005, [18] the Court of Appeals granted the petition and ordered the NLRC to give due course to respondent's appeal of the Labor Arbiter's Decision. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsidera