Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Petitioner vs. vs. Respondents Oliver A. Luproso Cayetano W. Paderanga
Petitioner vs. vs. Respondents Oliver A. Luproso Cayetano W. Paderanga
DECISION
GANCAYCO , J : p
The issue posed in this case is whether or not a party who failed to appeal from a decision
of the labor arbiter to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) within the ten (10)
day reglementary period can still participate in a separate appeal timely interposed by the
adverse party by filing a motion for reconsideration of a decision of the NLRC on such
appeal.
Petitioner was recruited as a laborer by private respondents Requito Vega, Antonio Gomez
and Belen Gomez, who are the owners of Vega & Co., a private recruitment agency, with
assignment at respondent Pilipinas Kao, Inc. (PKI for brevity), particularly at the Pit Burning
area. Sometime on April 16, 1984, he was allegedly summarily dismissed. Hence, on July
24, 1986, he filed a complaint for reinstatement and backwages with Region X of the
Department of Labor and Employment in Cagayan de Oro City.
On November 13, 1986, the labor arbiter ordered all parties to submit their position
papers. Only petitioner complied. On December 17, 1986, petitioner filed an urgent motion
that the failure of respondent to file their position papers is a waiver and so judgment
should be rendered in favor of petitioner. Similar motions were filed by petitioner on
January 23, 1987 and May 15, 1987.
On June 26, 1987, the labor arbiter rendered a decision ordering private respondents to
jointly and solidarily pay petitioner his separation pay computed at one month for every
year of service within the reglementary period. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC. Said
respondents also appealed but it was filed out of time.
On August 26, 1988, the Second Division of the NLRC promulgated a decision modifying
the appealed decision in that respondent PKI was ordered to reinstate petitioner to his
former position without loss of seniority rights and other accrued benefits and with full
backwages from the time of dismissal up to his actual reinstatement, and in case
reinstatement is impossible, payment of full backwages and separation pay of one (1)
month salary for every year of service. The appeal of respondent PKI was dismissed for
having been filed out of time.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
The PKI allegedly received a copy of the decision of the NLRC only on September 13, 1988.
A motion for reconsideration of said decision dated September 22, 1988 was filed by said
respondent and a similar motion was filed by Samahang Kabuhayan ng Barangay Luz
Banzon (SKLB for brevity) to which an opposition was filed by petitioner.
On September 30, 1988, a resolution was promulgated by the same division of the NLRC,
setting aside its decision and dismissing the case for lack of merit. A motion for
reconsideration thereof filed by petitioner who besides questioning its findings of facts
raised the issue that said respondent's appeal having been filed out of time its motion for
reconsideration of the decision should not have been entertained as it raised issues for the
first on appeal which were not raised before the labor arbiter. This motion was denied on
November 27, 1988.
Hence, the herein petition for certiorari wherein petitioner recites the following assignment
of errors:
"I
III
IV
Attached to respondent SKLB's motion likewise is the joint affidavit of one Mario
T. Ecarnum and Benito U. Ecarnum who jointly stated that they were neighbors
and co-workers of the complainant in the pit burning area, in a work contracted by
aforesaid respondent with respondent Pilipinas Kao, Inc.; that complainant
abandoned his work starting April 19, 1984 when he went to Manila to apply for
work abroad and it was only about eight (8) months later that he returned when
he failed to secure an overseas employment; that complainant's prolonged
absence was without prior permission or leave of absence.
Respondent SKLB further contends that it meets all requirements set by law and
jurisprudence pertaining to an independent labor contractor, citing the case of
Vda. de Eustaquio vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, 97 SCRA 255, thus:
The factual findings of the NLRC are conclusive on this Court because the same appear to
be supported by substantial evidence.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, Cruz and Medialdea, JJ ., concur.
Griño-Aquino, J ., is on leave.
Footnotes
1. Pages 4 to 5, Rollo.