FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 120062. June 8, 2000]
WORKERS OF
ANTIQUE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., herein represented by EDUARDO NIETES, petitioner,
vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ANTIQUE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,
INC., respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.:
What is before the Court is a petition for certiorari[1] assailing the dismissal by the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) of petitioner’s appeal for being filed out of time.[2]
We recite the antecedent facts.
On November 19, 1987, the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE)[3] conducted a routine inspection on Antique Electric
Cooperative, Inc. (ANTECO). The results showed an underpayment of employees
wages[4] during the period of November 1, 1984 to November
15, 1987 and non-payment or underpayment of 13th month pay for the years 1984,
1985 and 1986. The wage differentials were computed at One Million Four Hundred
Twenty Seven Thousand, Four Hundred Twelve Pesos and Seventy Five Centavos
(P1,427,412.75). Respondent failed to pay the wage differentials because of its
cash position.[5]
On September 19, 1989, the DOLE Regional
Director for Iloilo City issued an order, to wit:
"WHEREFORE,
premises considered, Antique Electric Cooperative and/or Paulo Lotilla is
hereby ordered to pay its workers the sum of ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY
SEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWELVE and 75/100 (P1,427,412.75) PESOS,
representing the latter’s wage differentials based on the attached computation
within ten (10) days from receipt of this Order.
"SO
ORDERED."[6]
On October 10, 1989 and on September 19,
1989,[7] the NLRC reiterated the above-quoted order.
On December 26, 1989, one hundred eight
(108) workers of ANTECO signed a waiver, pertinently quoted, thus:[8]
"We, the
undersigned coop employees are agreeable with the negotiation of the management
for the implementation of the back wages in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND
PESOS ONLY (P500,000.00) or THIRTY FIVE PERCENT (35%) in its equivalent instead
in the amount (sic) of ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND
FOUR HUNDED TWELVE PESOS and 75/100 (P1,427,412.75) as computed by the
Department of Labor and Employment mandated in the Order issued last October
10, 1989. We, therefore waive our rights for (sic) the remaining amount
such claim for the uncollected salary differentials shall be forfeited after
affixing our signatories herein and the stipulated amount paid."
On June 27, 1990, the DOLE approved the
waiver as it is "not contrary to law, good customs and public policy.[9]
On September 27, 1991, petitioner filed with
DOLE a motion for reconsideration alleging that the waiver was void for being
contrary to the Constitution and public policy and for having been executed
under undue influence, coercion, intimidation, and without assistance of
counsel. The motion prayed for an alias writ of execution commanding the
sheriff to collect the unpaid balance stated in the order dated September 19,
1989.[10] On October 9, 1991, DOLE denied the motion for
reconsideration.[11]
On December 1, 1992, petitioner workers of
ANTECO represented by Eduardo Nietes filed a position paper and/or complaint or
petition for salary differentials.[12] The position paper reiterated the arguments raised
in the motion for reconsideration of September 27, 1991. Petitioners prayed
that the waiver be declared null and void and that ANTECO be ordered to pay the
unpaid balance of 65% of the wage differentials and moral and exemplary
damages.[13]
On January 11, 1993, ANTECO filed with the
NLRC a manifestation moving for the position paper’s dismissal on the grounds:
"1. That
there is a non-joinder of the proper and indispensable parties;
"2. That
Eduardo Nietes has no authority to represent the alleged ANTECO workers;
"3. That the
alleged parties are not named in the petition;
"4. That the
subject matter is already moot and academic;
"5. That the
alleged petitioners are in estoppel;
"6. That the
petition is not filed by the proper party (DOLE);
"7. That the
NLRC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition;
"8. That
there is no cause of action against respondent."[14]
On October 8, 1993, the NLRC dismissed the
case, reasoning that on August 31, 1993, it directed petitioner to file formal
complaints but did not do so. The NLRC dismissed the case for failure to
"acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the complainants."[15]
Claiming to represent all of ANTECO’s
workers, on November 10, 1993, Eduardo Nietes filed an appeal with the NLRC. He
argued that the position paper satisfied the requirements of a formal
complaint.[16]
On February 7, 1994, the NLRC dismissed the
appeal for being filed out of time. According to the NLRC, the appeal was filed
nine (9) days late.[17] The NLRC found that petitioner received a copy of
the assailed order[18] on November 3, 1993; the appeal was filed on
November 22, 1993. The NLRC reasoned that the appeal "should have been
filed on November 15, 1993, since November 13, 1993 was a Saturday."[19]
On February 22, 1994, petitioner filed with
the NLRC a motion for reconsideration alleging that the appeal was filed by
registered mail on November 11, 1992. [20]
On September 14, 1994, the NLRC[21] denied the motion for reconsideration,[22] stating that the appeal was filed personally on
November 22, 1993, not by registered mail as claimed, and that this is
supported by the fact that the appeal fee and research fee were paid on the
same date.[23]
On September 28, 1994, petitioner filed with
the NLRC a "petition for relief from order denying motion for
reconsideration".[24] On April 6, 1995, the NLRC denied the same on the
ground that no such pleading or second motion for reconsideration is allowed
under its rules.[25]
Hence, this petition alleging that the NLRC
committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the case on technical
grounds and failed to hear and try the case on the merits.[26]
We deny the petition.
In a special civil action for certiorari
under Rule 65, petitioner must prove that respondent exercised its power in an
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[27] There is "grave abuse of discretion" when
respondent acts in a capricious or whimsical manner in the exercise of its
judgment as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[28]
Respondent NLRC did not commit a grave abuse
of discretion when it ruled that the appeal was filed out of time. When it
declared that the appeal was filed personally, it made a factual finding.
Factual findings of labor officials when supported by substantial evidence, as
in this case, the official receipts covering payment of appeal and legal
research fees, are binding on the parties.[29]
The perfection of an appeal within the
reglementary period and in the manner prescribed by law is mandatory and
jurisdictional. Non-compliance therewith renders the judgment sought to appeal
final and executory.[30] Article 223 of the Labor Code provides:
"Article 223.
Appeal. Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and
executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten
(10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders."
An appeal is perfected when there is proof
of payment of the appeal fee and in cases where the employer appeals and a
monetary award is involved, there is payment of the appeal bond.[31] A mere notice of appeal without complying with the
other requisites shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an
appeal.[32]
However, in the higher interest of justice,
we have in meritorious cases allowed late appeals from decisions of the labor
arbiter to the NLRC.[33] We cannot allow an exception in the case at bar.
Even on the substantive questions, the petition must fail.
There is no proof that the case is a class
suit. There is no evidence that the ANTECO workers authorized and chose Eduardo
Nietes to represent them. There is no showing that all of the workers
supposedly represented by Eduardo Nietes are joined by a common or general
interest. The rule is that the party bringing suit has the burden of proving
the sufficiency of the representative character that he claims.[34]
The identities of the represented workers
are not clear. The names of the real parties in interest are not stated in the
position paper.[35] The rule is that "the full names of all the
real parties in interest, whether natural or juridical persons or entities authorized
by law, shall be stated in the caption of the complaint or petition."[36]
There is no basis to invalidate the waiver.
The petition implies that the order approving the waiver was tainted with
corruption. This is unsubstantiated. Mere allegation is not proof. The
presumption is that official business was regularly performed and that when
Labor Arbiter Henry Parel approved the waiver,[37] he did so in good faith.
WHEREFORE, we find that the NLRC committed no grave abuse of
discretion and hereby DISMISS the petition. Consequently, we AFFIRM the
resolutions of National Labor Relations Commission in RAB Case No.
VI-10-50392-92 (NLRC Case No. V-0503-93), dated October 8, 1993, February 7,
1994 and September 14, 1994 and April 6, 1995.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), on official leave abroad.
[1] Under Rule 65 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court.
[2] In NLRC Case No. V-0503-93, Rollo, pp. 44-45.
[3] Regional Office No. VI, Iloilo City.
[4] Includes overtime pay, holiday pay, night shift
differentials, corresponding ECOLA on sick leaves granted by the Social
Security System and ECOLA on maternity leave credits.
[5] NLRC Records, p. 2.
[6] Ibid., p. 3.
[7] Ibid., p. 42.
[8] NLRC Records, pp. 43-46.
[9] Ibid., p. 42.
[10] NLRC Records, pp. 48-49.
[11] Ibid., p. 164.
[12] Ibid., pp. 26-31.
[13] Ibid., p. 31.
[14] NLRC Records, p. 58.
[15] Ibid., p. 82.
[16] Ibid., pp. 88-94.
[17] Beyond the ten-day reglementary period provided for
under Article 223 of the Labor Code.
[18] Dated October 8, 1993.
[19] NLRC Records, pp. 201-202.
[20] Ibid., p. 203
[21] Commissioner Bernabe S. Batuhan, ponente, and
concurred in by Commissioners Irenea E. Ceniza and Amorito V. Canere.
[22] NLRC Records, p. 238.
[23] As shown by Official Receipt Nos. 6562299 U and
6562300 U respectively.
[24] NLRC Records, p. 240.
[25] Ibid., p. 271.
[26] Filed on May 22, 1995, Rollo, pp. 2-9.
[27] Don Orestes Romualdez Electric Cooperative Inc. v.
NLRC, G. R. No. 128389, November 25, 1999.
[28] Condo Suite Club Travel, Inc. v. NLRC, G. R. No.
125671, January 28, 2000.
[29] Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Moldex Products, Inc. v.
NLRC, G. R. No. 119467, February 1, 2000.
[30] Rodento Navarro v. NLRC, G. R. No. 116464,
March 1, 2000.
[31] Lamzon v. NLRC, G. R. No. 113600, May 28,
1999.
[32] Jose Gaudia v. NLRC, G. R. No. 109371, November
18, 1999.
[33] New Pacific Timber & Supply Company, Co., Inc. v.
NLRC, G. R. No. 124224, March 17, 2000.
[34] Justice Florenz D. Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium,
1997, p. 89.
[35] Submitted to the NLRC on December 1, 1992.
[36] NLRC Rules of Procedure, Rule III, Section 1 (b).
[37] NLRC Records, p. 42.