CASE DIGEST: MANAYA vs. ALABANG COUNTRY CLUB INCORPORATED. G.R. No. 168988. June 19, 2007

Art. 4 - On Construction of Labor Code

FACTS:

Petitioner alleged that in 1989 he was initially hired by the respondent as a maintenance helper and was later designated as a company electrician. He continued to work until 1998 when respondent informed him that his services were no longer required by the company. Petitioner filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter contending that respondent illegally dismissed him without just cause and without due process. The former further asserted that with his more or less nine years of service with respondent, he had become a regular employee.

Respondent, on the other hand denied employment of petitioner and contended that the latter was employed by First Staffing Network Corp. (FSNC) with which the respondent had an existing memorandum of agreement (MOA). Thus, by virtue of a legitimate job contracting, petitioner, as an employee of FSNC, came to work with the respondent.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Petitioner and held respondent and FFSNC solidarily liable with the petitioner. Respondent filed an appeal but dismissed by NLRC for failure to perfect an appeal. In CA, the latter reversed NLRC's decision and order the latter to give due course to respondent's appeal. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether respondent's appeal may be given due course and allows the relaxation of rules of procedure.

RULING:

No, the Court allowed liberal interpretation given the extraordinary circumstances that justify a deviation from an otherwise stringent rule. Absent exceptional circumstances, we adhere to the rule that certain procedural precepts must remain inviolable, like those setting the periods for perfecting an appeal or filing a petition for review, for it is doctrinally entrenched that the right to appeal is a statutory right and one who seeks to avail oneself of that right must comply with the statute or rules.

In this particular case, we adhere to the strict interpretation of the rule for the following reasons:

Firstly, in this case, entry of judgment had already been made which rendered the decision of the LA as final and executory.

Secondly, it is a basic and irrefragable rule that in carrying out and in interpreting the provisions of the Labor Code and its implementing regulations, the workingman’s welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration. The interpretation herein made gives meaning and substance to the liberal and compassionate spirit of the law enunciated in Article 4 of the Labor Code that "all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code including its implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor."

In the case of Bunagan v. Sentinel, the court declared that:

The perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory, but jurisdictional, and failure to do so renders the questioned decision final and executory and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the final judgement, much less to entertain the appeal. The underlying purpose of this principle is to prevent needless delay, a circumstance which would allow the employer to wear out the efforts and meager resources of the worker to the point that the latter is constrained to settle for less than what is due him.

The Court is aware that the NLRC is not bound by the technical rules of procedure and is allowed to be liberal in the interpretation of rules in deciding labor cases. However, such liberality should not be applied in the instant case as it would render futile the very purpose for which the principle of liberality is adopted. The liberal interpretation in favor of labor stems from the mandate that the workingman's welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration.

Thirdly, respondent has not shown sufficient justification to reverse the findings of the LA as affirmed by the NLRC.