GABRIEL V.

BILON
G.R. No. 146989 - February 7, 2007
J. Azcuna

Digest Author: Julie Francisco

Topic: Rule 86 - Claims Allowed
Petitioner: Melencio Gabriel, represented by surviving spouse, Flordeliza Gabriel
Respondents: Nelson Bilon, Angel Brazil and Ernesto Pagaygay

Case Summary: Respondents Bilon et. al. filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against
petitioner Melencio. The LA ruled in their favor. However, Melencio died before a copy of the
LA’s decision was served to his house.

The SC held that the money claims survived the death of Melencio, and these should be filed
against his estate.

FACTS
1. Petitioner Melencio Gabriel (Melencio) was the owner-operator of a public
transport business, "Gabriel Jeepney," with a fleet of 54 jeepneys plying the Baclaran
- Divisoria -Tondo route.
- He had a pool of drivers, which included private respondents Bilon et. al.,
operating under a "boundary system" of ₱400 per day.
2. November 15 1995 - Bilon et. al. filed their separate complaints for illegal dismissal,
illegal deductions, and separation pay against Melencio with the NLRC.
- These were later consolidated.
3. In his defense, Melencio alleged that he does not remember if Bilon et. al. were ever
under his employ as drivers.
- However, he is certain that he never dismissed Bilon et. al.
4. March 17 1997 - The LA ruled in favor of Bilon et. al. It held that they were illegally
dismissed, and it ordered Melencio to pay them a total of P1,034,000 as
backwages and separation pay.
5. April 4, 1997 - Melencio died.
6. April 18, 1997 - A copy of the LA’s decision was delivered personally to Melencio’’s
house.
- According to Bilon et. al., Melencio's surviving spouse, Flordeliza Gabriel
(Flordeliza), and their daughter refused to receive this after reading its contents.
- Nevertheless, the bailiff left a copy of the decision with Flordeliza and the
daughter, but they both refused to sign and acknowledge its receipt.
7. May 16 1997 - Flordeliza’s counsel filed an entry of appearance with motion to
dismiss the case on the ground that Melencio died.
8. May 28 1997 - The LA’s decision was subsequently served by registered mail at
Melencio’s residence and the same was received.
9. June 5 1997 - Flordeliza appealed the LA’s decision to the NLRC.
- This was opposed by Bilon et. al. on the ground that the surety bond is
defective and that the appeal was filed out of time.
10. The NLRC reversed the LA’s decision and dismissed the complaint for lack of
employer-employee relationship.
 11. Bilon et. al. filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the decision did not
discuss the timeliness of the appeal.
12. The NLRC then promulgated another decision stating that the case must still be
dismissed.
- In the case at bar, Melencio was not represented by counsel during the
pendency of the case.
- A decision was rendered by the Labor Arbiter a quo on March 17, 1997
while Mr. Gabriel passed away on April 4, 1997 without having received a
copy thereof during his lifetime.
- The decision was only served on April 18, 1997 when he was no longer
around to receive the same.
- His surviving spouse and daughter cannot automatically substitute
themselves as party respondents.
- The LA’s decision did not become final because there was no proper
service to Melencio.
- Undoubtedly, this case is for recovery of money which does not survive,
and considering that the decision has not become final, the case should
have been dismissed and the appeal no longer entertained.
13. On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the NLRC.
- It disagreed that the death of Melencio ipso facto negates recovery of the
money claim against the successors-in-interest.
- This situation comes within the ambit of Section 3, Rule III of the NLRC Manual
on Execution of Judgment. 1
14. Thus, the CA reinstated the LA’s ruling with the modification that BIlon et. al. should be
reinstated with full backwages.
15. Hence, this petition before the SC.

ISSUES + HELD
W/N Flordeliza’s appeal was filed out of time? - NO

Discussion on appeal period

1. Section 4 of Rule III of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC states that notices or
summons and copies of orders, resolutions or decisions shall be served on the parties
to the case personally by the bailiff or authorized public officer within three (3) days from
receipt thereof or by registered mail2

1
SECTION 3. Execution in Case of Death of Party. – Where a party dies after the finality of the decision/entry of
judgment of order, execution thereon may issue or one already issued may be enforced in the following cases
b) In case of death of the losing party, against his successor-in-interest, executor or administrator;
c) In case of death of the losing party after execution is actually levied upon any of his property, the same may be
sold for the satisfaction thereof, and the sheriff making the sale shall account to his successor-in-interest, executor
or administrator for any surplus in his hands.
2
SEC. 4. Service of Notices and Resolutions. – (a) Notices or summons and copies of orders, resolutions or
decisions shall be served on the parties to the case personally by the bailiff or authorized public officer within three
(3) days from receipt thereof or by registered mail; Provided, That where a party is represented by counsel or
authorized representative, service shall be made on such counsel or authorized representative; Provided further, That
in cases of decision and final awards, copies thereof shall be served on both parties and their counsel ….

For the purpose of computing the period of appeal, the same shall be counted from receipt of such decisions, awards
or orders by the counsel of record.
 - For the purposes of counting the period of appeal, he same shall be counted
from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders by the counsel of record.
2. Section 6, Rule 13 of the ROC states that service of the papers may be made by
delivering personally a copy to the party or his counsel, or by leaving it in his office with
his clerk or with a person having charge thereof.
- If no person is found in his office, or his office is not known, or he has no office,
then by leaving the copy, between the hours of eight in the morning and six in
the evening, at the party’s or counsel’s residence, if known, with a person of
sufficient age and discretion then residing therein
3. However, these provisions contemplate a situation wherein the party to the action is
alive upon the delivery of a copy of the tribunal’s decision.
4. In the present case, however, Melencio died before a copy of the labor arbiter’s
decision was served upon him.
5. Thus, the NLRC was correct in stating that the LA’s decision did not become final
because there was no proper service of copy to Melencio.
- The decision was only served on April 18, 1997 when he was no longer
around to receive the same.
- His surviving spouse and daughter cannot automatically substitute
themselves as party respondents.
- Thus, when the bailiff tendered a copy of the decision to them, they were
not in a position to receive them.
- The requirement of leaving a copy at the party’s residence is not applicable
in the instant case because this presupposes that the party is still living and
is not just available to receive the decision.
6. Thus, the appeal filed on behalf of petitioner on June 5, 1997 after receipt of a
copy of the decision via registered mail on May 28, 1997 was within the ten-day
reglementary period prescribed under Section 223 of the Labor Code.

W/N the claim survives the death of Melencio? - YES

Discussion
1. Section 20, Rule 3 of the ROC governs the present claim.
- SEC. 20. Action on contractual money claims. – When the action is for
recovery of money arising from contract, express or implied, and the
defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the court in which the
action was pending at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but
shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A
favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the
manner provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate
of a deceased person.
2. This must be read in conjunction with Section 5 of Rule 86.

(b) The bailiff or officer personally serving the notice, order, resolution or decision shall submit his return within
two (2) days from date of service thereof, stating legibly in his return, his name, the names of the persons served and
the date of receipt which return shall be immediately attached and shall form part of the records of the case. If no
service was effected, the serving officer shall state the reason therefore in the return.
 - SEC. 5. Claims which must be filed under the notice. If not filed, barred ;
exceptions. – All claims for money against the decedent arising from contract,
express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, ... and
judgment for money against the decedent, must be filed within the time limited
in the notice; otherwise they are barred forever, except that they may be set
forth as counterclaims in any action that the executor or administrator may bring
against the claimants
3. Thus, in accordance with the above Rules, the money claims of respondents must
be filed against the estate of petitioner Melencio.

RULING: CA affirmed, with the modification that the money claims of Bilon et. al. should
be filed against the estate of Melencio within such reasonable time from the finality of
this Decision as the estate court may fix.