G.R. No.

71177 February 29, 1988

ERECTORS, INC., petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND DANILO
CRIS, respondents.

SARMIENTO, J.:

This case should not have reached this Tribunal. It should have, in fact, been terminated three years ago but for the petitioner's counsels
who had the temerity to cite a non-existent law with the obvious intention of delaying the proceedings if not outrightly evading financial
responsibility under the law. This actuation, indeed, is flagrant dishonesty. We cannot let it pass.

But before we proceed, a recital of the background of the controversy is in order.

The private respondent, Danilo Cris, a contract worker as Earthworks Engineer in Taif, Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia, filed the case with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) on
February 27, 1984 for the illegal termination of his contract of employment with the petitioner herein,
Erectors, Inc. The petitioner, as a defense, contended that the private respondent was estopped
from questioning the legality of his termination as he already voluntarily and freely received his
termination pay. The POEA, on September 27,1984, rendered a decision adverse to petitioner, the
dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered ordering the respondents ERECTORS, INC.

and SOCIETE AUXILLAIRE D'ENTERPRISES (S.A.E.) jointly and severally, to pay
the complainant, DANILO CRIS the sum of SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED
SIXTY SIX DOLLARS AND SIXTY SIX CENTS ($ 7,166.6), or its equivalent in
Philippine Currency at the time of actual payment, representing the unpaid salaries
for the unexpired term of complainant's contract.  1

The decision was received by the petitioner on October 25, 1984. Fifteen days later, or on November
9 of the same year, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the respondent National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The motion which was treated as an appeal was dismissed by
the NLRC "for having been filed out of time."  2

The petitioner, through counsel, alleged that the respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion in dismissing the case and affirmed that the motion for reconsideration or appeal was
seasonably filed explaining thus:

xxx xxx xxx

While it is true that between 25 October 1984 (date of receipt of the POEA decision)
and 09 November 1984 (actual date of filing of petitioner's motion for
reconsideration), there were actually fifteen (15) calendar days, however, it can not
be disputed that within said period there were only ten (10) working days, and five (5)
non-working or legal holidays, which were as follows:

October 26, 1984--Saturday

October 27,1984--Sunday
 November 1, 1984--All Saint's Day

November 3, 1984--Saturday

November 4,198--Sunday  3

xxx xxx xxx

In support of its contention, the petitioner cited two provisions allegedly of the 1984 POEA rules and
procedures, specifying Rule XXIV, sec. 1, and Rule XXV, sec. 2, thereof, which purportedly provide:

Rule XXV

xxx xxx xxx

Section 2. Finality of Decision, Order or Award — all decisions, orders or award shall
become final after the lapse of ten (10) working days from receipt of a copy thereof
by the parties and no appeal has been perfected within same period.

RULE XXIV

Section 1. Motion for Reconsideration. — The aggrieved party may within ten (10)
working days from receipt of the decision, order or resolution of the Administration,
may file for a motion for reconsideration; otherwise, the decision shall be final and
executory (Emphasis supplied)  4

These cited rules do not exist. Nowhere in any law or rules relative to the POEA may the above
provisions be found.

The POEA was created only on May 1, 1982 by virtue of Executive Order No. 797. Pursuant to the
said Executive Order, the then Minister of Labor, Blas F. Ople promulgated on September 5, 1983
the POEA Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment which took effect on January 1, 1984.
These 1984 Rules were superseded on May 21, 1985 by the POEA Rules & Regulations.

For the reason that the petitioner's appeal with the NLRC was filed on November 9,1984, the 1984
Rules should govern. And this was precisely what the petitioner insisted upon — the POEA rules
obtaining in 1984 must be applied.   Yet therein, it is clear that the period for perfecting an appeal or
5

a Motion for Reconsideration is ten (10) calendar days. The pertinent rule on the matter is found in
Book VII, Rule 5, of the 1984 Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment (POEA/MOLE) to
wit:

Section 1. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR APPEAL. The aggrieved

party may, within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the decision, order or
resolution file a motion for reconsideration which shall specify in detail the particular
errors and objections, otherwise the decision shall be final and executory. Such
motion for reconsideration shall be treated as an appeal as provided in this Rule
otherwise the same shall not be entertained.

The above rule is expressed in a language so simple and precise that there is no necessity to
interpret it.
Moreover, as early as 1982, this Court, in the landmark case of Vir-Jen Shipping & Marine Services,
Inc. vs. NLRC  construed the ten (10) day period for filing of appeals  from decisions of Labor
6 7

Arbiters or compulsory arbitrators as ten (10) calendar days, as well as the raison d' etre for the
shorter period, thus:

xxx xxx xxx

...if only because We believe that it is precisely in the interest of labor that the law
has commanded that labor cases be promptly, if not peremptorily, disposed of. Long
periods for any acts to be done by the contending parties can be taken advantage of
more by management than by labor. Most labor claims are decided in their favor and
management is generally the appellant. Delay, in most instances, gives the
employers more opportunity not only to prepare even ingenious defense, what with
well-paid talented lawyers they can afford, but even to wear out the efforts and
meager resources of the workers, to the point that not infrequently the latter either
give up or compromise for less than what is due them.

xxx xxx xxx

The POEA rule applicable in this case is precisely in consonance with the above ruling in that it
expressed in no uncertain terms that the period for appeal is ten (10) calendar days. For "not even
the Secretary of Labor has the power to amend or alter in any material sense whatever the law itself
unequivocably specifies or fixes."  8

There is, thus, no doubt that the law mandates that the period for filing a motion for reconsideration
or appeal with the NLRC is ten (10) calendar days and not ten (10) working days.

It is, therefore, obvious that the counsels for the petitioner deliberately tried to mislead this Court if
only to suit their client's ends. On this regard, said counsels have much explaining to do.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed
Resolution of the public respondent, dated December 28, 1984, AFFIRMED. The Temporary
Restraining Order issued by this Court on July 10, 1985 is hereby LIFTED. The counsels for the
petitioner are also admonished for foisting a non-existent rule with the warning that repetition of the
same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. With triple costs against the petitioner.

This Decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.

SO ORDERED.