G.R. NO. 167723 - CLUB FILIPINO, INC., VS. ROMEO ARAULLO. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decisions of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter are vacated and set aside. Petitioner Araullo's dismissal is hereby declared illegal. Accordingly, the respondent Club Filipino is hereby ordered to reinstate Araullo to his former position without loss of seniority rights and to pay petitioner full back wages, inclusive of allowances, including 13 th month pay, as well as other monetary benefits, computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him to the time of his reinstatement. Should reinstatement be no longer possible the respondent Club Filipino should instead pay Araullo separation pay equivalent to one month a day for every year of service, with the fraction of at least six (6) months be considered as one whole year. [9] Finding that the period of appeal had expired, respondent filed before the appellate court a Motion for Entry of Judgment. [10] Before the appellate court could resolve the motion, it received a copy of a Petition for Review filed by petitioner before this Court, drawing the appellate court to deny respondent's motion on May 20, 2005. [11] In its Petition for Review, [12] petitioner faults the appellate court for: HOLDING AND TREATING THE ORIGINAL PETITION OF THE RESPONDENT AS A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF THE ALLOWABLE LEGAL GROUNDS AS WELL AS THE REQUIRED FORMALITIES; DECID[ING] IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH ARTICLE 282 par.(A), (C) AND (D) OF THE LABOR CODE AND EXTANT JURISPRUDENCE IN DECLARING THE DISMISSAL OF HEREIN RESPONDENT TO BE ILLEGAL. DECIDING THAT THE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT'S RECEIPT BEARING SERIAL NO. 379612 CANNOT BE CONCLUDED AS TAMPERED DESPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE LABOR ARBITER AND THE NLRC MADE A CONCLUSIVE FINDINGS OF FACT ESTABLISHING THEREIN THAT THE RECEIPT IN POSSESSION OF THE RESPONDENT HAS BEEN TAMPERED AND FORGED. [13] For his part, respondent in his Comment [14] argues that the Petition, apart from being fatally defective for lack of certification against forum-shopping, was filed beyond the reglementary period since it received the February 28, 2005 Decision of the appellate court on March 3, 2005 and, therefore, had up to March 18, 2005 to file the petition, but it filed the same only on April 27, 2005. To prove that petitioner received a copy of the Decision on March 3, 2005, respondent attached a certified photocopy of Registry Return Receipt No. 2706 [15] covering the envelope containing the copy of said decision sent to petitioner's counsel, and a Certification of Proof of Service of registered letter No. 2706 dated April 25, 2005 [16] of the San Juan Central Post Office which reads: x x x x In connection with your inquiry, I hereby certify that Registered Letter No. 2706 addressed to [petitioner's counsel] Atty. Ernesto Tabao , Room 1004, 10 th Floor Atlanta Center, 31 Annapolis Street, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila, was delivered to and received by MELANIE P. ABEJERO [17] Secretary on MARCH 3, 2005 . x x x x (Em