G.R. No. 126703 - GANDARA MILL SUPPLY AND MILAGROS SY, VS. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND SILVESTRE GERMANO.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, decision is hereby rendered ordering respondent/s Gandara Mill Supply and/or Milagros Sy to pay complainant Silvestre Germano the sum of SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE PESOS AND 90/100 (P65,685.90) representing separation pay, backwages, SLIP and attorneys fee as iscussed and computed above." On March 4, 1996, petitioner appealed said decision to the NLRC. To the appeal, an Opposition was interposed on March 15, 1996. On May 22, 1996, the NLRC dismissed petitioners appeal for failure to post a cash or surety bond. The appeal was predicated on the submission that petitioners business is small, on which invoked ground petitioner sought exemption from posting a bond. Should its prayer for exemption of a bond be denied, petitioner asked for at least twenty (20) days to put up such bond. The petition attacks the July 23, 1996 Resolution of public respondent, affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated January 29, 1996. On August 14, 1996, a Motion for Execution was presented by private respondent. NLRC entered its judgment on August 26, 1996. On September 6, 1996, private respondent sent in an Ex-parte Motion for Execution, which was granted. The corresponding Writ of Execution issued on September 13, 1996. The issues posited for resolution : FIRST, did the public respondent act with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners appeal and in not giving petitioner a chance to prove that the private respondent was not illegally dismissed but was merely suspended for abandoning his job?; and SECOND, did the public respondent act with grave abuse of discretion in awarding to the private respondent the amount of SIXTY-FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY-FIVE AND 90/00 (P65,685.90), which amount petitioner assails as excessive? To be sure, the petitioner was afforded a chance to show that the private respondent was not illegally dismissed. Unfortunately, petitioner failed to discharge its burden of proof. In a long line of cases, the Court has consistently ruled that, findings of fact by quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC are conclusive upon the court in the absence of proof of grave error in the appreciation of facts. Petitioners bare allegation that it was denied the right to be heard is negated by the Labor Arbiters extension of much leniency to petitioner by allowing the latter to submit a position paper on April 28, 1995, then on May 5, 1995, and finally, seven (7) days from receipt of the Order dated May 9, 1995. Generally, reglementary periods are strictly observed to the end that orderly administration of justice be safeguarded. In the case under consideration, the public respondent had been quite liberal in observing and enforcing the rules. Consequently, petitioners protestation of denial of opportunity to be heard is barren of any factual basis. The principle of laches finds a wide room for application here. Laches, in a general sense, is failure or neglect for an unreasonable length of time to do that