Case Digest: C.W. Tan Manufacturing, et. al. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 79596, February 10, 1989

 Labor Law | Appeal

• A complaint for illegal dismissal was filed by the Associated Labor Union (ALU) and Angelino Brimon against the petitioners C.W. Tan Manufacturing, Federico Javier and Jaime So.
• The petitioners issued a memorandum citing undesirable behavior and violation of company rules as grounds for termination. Brimon was allegedly dismissed due to seeking leave of absence without proper approval and lying about it.
• Labor Arbiter: Dismissed the complaint citing valid cause and due process.
• NLRC: Initially dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time as there was no proof of service of the appeal to the adverse party. But later reconsidered its decision, finding Brimon's dismissal arbitrary without a formal investigation, setting aside the labor arbiter's decision.
• The petitioner challenges the NLRC decision for failing to furnish a copy of the appeal memorandum and pay the docketing fee within the reglementary appeal period.

WoN the questioned decision of the labor arbiter had become final and executory for failure of private respondents to perfect their appeal on time. YES

There is no question in this case that the memorandum of appeal from the decision of the labor arbiter to the NLRC was filed within the reglementary period by private respondent. However he failed to furnish a copy thereof to the adverse party as required by Section 3, Rule IX of the Implementing Regulations which provides:

The appeal shall be under oath, shall contain already the memorandum of appeal and proof of service and shall only be considered perfected upon its filing after payment of the required appeal fee.

Private respondent, however, promptly furnished a copy of said memorandum of appeal to petitioners when his attention was called to this omission.

There is no question likewise that the private respondent failed to pay the required filing fee within the reglementary period of appeal and that he paid for the same only after this case was elevated to this Court.

The failure of the appellant (private respondent) to furnish a copy of the appeal memorandum to the adverse party is not a jurisdictional defect, but is a mere formal lapse as ruled by this court in several instances.  And when as in this case such requirement was complied with although beyond the period of appeal, the appeal should be given due course.

As to the issue of the non-payment of the appeal fee on time, this Court held in Del Rosario & Sons Logging Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC that "the failure to pay the appeal docketing fee confers a directory and not a mandatory power to dismiss an appeal and such power must be exercised with a sound discretion and with a great deal of circumspection considering all attendant circumstances." It is true that in Acda vs. Minister of Labor, We said that the payment of the appeal fee is "by no means a mere technicality but is an essential requirement in the perfection of an appeal." However, where as in this case the fee had been paid belatedly the broader interest of justice and the desired objective in deciding the case on the merits demand that the appeal be given due course.

Petitioner, however calls the attention of this Court to the fact that in Del Rosario, the delayed payment of the appeal fee was during the pendency of the appeal before the NLRC, while in the present case, the delayed payment was made only when the petition was already filed before this Court which was after the lapse of a period of over five (5) years since the filing of the appeal. It must be noted that under Section 12 of the 1975 NLRC Rules which is applicable to this case, the filing fee was only P25.00. 

Under Article 221 of the Labor Code, it is provided as follows:

ART. 221. Technical rules not binding. - In any proceeding before the Commission or any of the Labor Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.

xxx xxx xxx

From the foregoing, it is clear that the technical rules of evidence are not binding in proceedings before the NLRC or labor arbiters and that all reasonable means should be used to ascertain the facts of the case without regard to the technicality ties of law or procedure.

Although it is obvious that private respondent failed to pay the required docketing fee for an unreasonable length of time, nevertheless this Court finds that under the circumstances of the case and considering the merit of the appeal, the greater interest of justice will be served by giving due course to the appeal despite the much delayed payment of the docketing fee. Indeed, private respondent Brimon, being a dismissed employee, can very well be considered as a pauper litigant whose failure to pay the nominal docketing fee of P25.00 within the reglementary period should be treated with understanding and compassion.

As to the merit of the decision of the public respondent, petitioners do not even question the same. Petitioners insist on its untenable stand that the decision of the labor arbiter became final and executory and that public respondent NLRC had no authority to set aside said decision of the labor arbiter.

The Court finds that there is a cogent basis in the finding of public respondent NLRC that private respondent Brimon was arbitrarily dismissed without benefit of a formal investigation.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and the subject decision of public respondent NLRC dated March 12, 1987 and its subsequent resolution dated July 20, 1987, are hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that the payment of backwages of private respondent shall not exceed the period of three (3) years. No pronouncement as to costs.