G.R. No. 167637 - METRO EYE SECURITY, INC., VS. JULIE V. SALSONA. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises all considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the dismissal illegal and ordering respondents to pay complainant back wages in the amount of P107,280.00 (P5,364.00 x 20 mos. = P107,280.00); separation pay in the amount of P5,364.00; service incentive pay in the amount of P1,117.50 (223.50 x 5 days = P1,117.00); 13th month pay in the amount of P3,472.00 (1/8 of P3,472.00) and 10% of the total monetary award by way of attorneys fees. [8] From the foregoing Decision of the Labor Arbiter, petitioner filed an Appeal with the NLRC. In a Decision dated 30 April 2004, the NLRC concurred in the finding of the Labor Arbiter that the dismissal of Salsona was illegal. It held that the petitioners accusation that Salsona tampered with his payroll documents was without basis. It likewise concluded that the charges against Salsona of tampering with payroll documents and pilferage of construction materials are without basis. [9] Thus, the NLRC ruled: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION only insofar as the dropping of individual respondents Amable Aguiluz and Ernesto Rioveros from the Decision. [10] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the NLRC denied in a Resolution dated 24 August 2004. [11] Petitioner elevated its case to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. [12] In a Resolution dated 15 December 2004, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for having been filed beyond the reglementary period. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal of its Petition. The Motion was denied for lack of merit by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated 21 March 2005. In denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration, the Court of Appeals explained that the original copy of the assailed Resolution dated 24 August 2004 issued by the NLRC indicates that counsel for the petitioner received a copy of the same on 13 September 2004, [13] not on 15 September 2004 as alleged by petitioner in its Motion for Reconsideration. The Court of Appeals further made the observation that the photocopy [14] of the same NLRC Resolution dated 24 August 2004 attached to petitioners Motion for Reconsideration with the appellate court appears to have been doctored to indicate the date of receipt as Sep 15 2004 to suit petitioners posturing. [15] Hence, the present Petition wherein the following issues are raised for resolution: WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION BY THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS; WHETHER OR NOT TECHNICAL RULES OF PROCEDURE (sic) BE GIVEN MORE SIGNIFICANCE OVER THE CLEARLY MERITORIOUS ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITION. [16] According to the petitioner, the actual date of its receipt of the 24 August 2004 NLRC Resolution is 15 September 2004 and not 13 September 2004 as erroneously stamped on its copy by the secretary of petitioners counsel. It has 60 days to file the Petition