G.R. No. 172031 - JUANITO TALIDANO, VS. FALCON MARITIME & ALLIED SERVICES, INC., SPECIAL EIGHTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND LABOR ARBITER ERMITA C. CUYUGA. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and set aside and a new one entered declaring the dismissal of the complainant as illegal. Respondents Falcon Maritime & Allied Services, Inc. and Hansu Corporation are hereby ordered to jointly and severally pay complainant the amount equivalent to his three (3) months salary as a result thereof. [12] The NLRC held that the fax messages in support of the alleged misbehavior and neglect of duty by petitioner have no probative value and are self-serving. It added that the ship's logbook should have been submitted in evidence as it is the repository of all the activities on board the vessel, especially those affecting the performance or attitude of the officers and crew members, and, more importantly, the procedures preparatory to the discharge of a crew member. The NLRC also noted that private respondent failed to comply with due process in terminating petitioner's employment. [13] Private respondent moved for reconsideration, [14] claiming that the complaint was filed beyond the one-year prescriptive period. The NLRC, however, denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated 30 August 2002. [15] Rejecting the argument that the complaint had already prescribed, it ruled : Records show that respondent in this case had filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription before the Labor Arbiter a quo who denied the same in an Order dated August 1, 2000. Such an Order being unappealable, the said issue of prescription cannot be raised anew specially in a motion for reconsideration. (Citations omitted) [16] It appears that respondent received a copy of the NLRC Resolution [17] on 24 September 2002 and that said resolution became final and executory on 7 October 2002. [18] Private respondent brought the case to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari [19] on 8 October 2002. The petition, docketed as CA-G.R. Sp. No. 73521, was dismissed on technicality in a Resolution dated 29 October 2002. The pertinent portion of the resolution reads: (1) [T]he VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING was signed by one Florida Z. Jose, President of petitioner Falcon Maritime and Allied Services, Inc., without proof that she is the duly authorized representative of petitioner-corporation; (2) [T]here is no affidavit of service of the petition to the National Labor Relations Commission and to the adverse party; (3) [T]here is no explanation to justify service by mail in lieu of the required personal service. (Citations omitted) [20] An entry of judgment was issued by the clerk of court on 23 November 2002 stating that the 29 October 2002 Resolution had already become final and executory. [21] Meanwhile, on 12 November 2002, private respondent filed another petition before the Court of Appeals, [22] docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 73790. This is the subject of the present petition. Petitioner dispensed with the filing of a comment. [23] In his Memorandum, [24] however, he argu