ConstiLaw 23-06 FEBTC Vs Chua 762 SCRA 128 her employment, Chua filed a Complaint for

GR 187491 (July 8, 2015) illegal dismissal and monetary claims before

the Regional Arbitration Branch XII, Cotabato
FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST City of the National Labor Relations
COMPANY, Petitioner, v. LILIA S. Commission.4redarclaw
CHUA, Respondent.
In the course of the proceedings before the
DECISION Regional Arbitration Branch, the parties were
ordered to submit their respective Position
LEONEN, J.: Papers. Despite an extension having been
given to Far East Bank, it failed to timely file its
Respondent Lilia S. Chua (Chua) was dismissed Position Paper.5redarclaw
by petitioner Far East Bank and Trust Co. (Far
East Bank) due to a finding that she engaged in On April 25, 2000, Executive Labor Arbiter
multiple kiting transactions which was a Quintin B. Cueto III (Executive Labor Arbiter
serious violation of Far East Bank's Code of Cueto) rendered a Decision6 finding Chua to
Conduct. The Labor Arbiter ruled that there have been illegally dismissed. The dispositive
was illegal dismissal. This was reversed by the portion of the Decision reads:
National Labor Relations Commission. Chua
participated in the appeal proceedings before WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
the National Labor Relations Commission. judgment is hereby rendered declaring the
dismissal of the complainant Lilia S. Chua by
The Court of Appeals reversed the National respondent FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST
Labor Relations Commission's ruling, stating COMPANY (FEBTC) ILLEGAL, thereby entitling
that Far East Bank's appeal before the National her to reinstatement and full backwages
Labor Relations Commission was not inclusive of allowances and other benefits
perfected. computed from the time her compensation
was withheld from her up to the time of her
We are asked in this Petition to reverse the actual reinstatement.
ruling of the Court of Appeals.
Respondent FEBTC is hereby ordered to pay
Chua was employed as a bank executive by Far the backwages of the complainant until April
East Bank, rising through the latter's ranks and 25, 2000 (date of this decision) and her other
holding the position of Assistant Vice President benefit [sic] as above-discussed for the interim
from October 1, 1997 until the termination of total of ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-
her employment.1redarclaw ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FOUR PESOS
& 19/100 (P1,181,804.19).
It is not disputed that on July 1, 1999, Chua's
employment was terminated as Far East Bank All other additional claims of the complainant
found Chua to have engaged in multiple kiting as discussed above are still to be substantiated
transactions,2 which are fraudulent inorder [sic] for Us to arrive at an accurate
transactions "involving the] drawing out [of] computation.
money from a bank account that does not
have sufficient funds [in order] to cover [a] SO ORDERED.
check."3redarclaw On the same date, Far East Bank filed a Motion
to admit its Position Paper. On May 15, 2000,
Assailing Far East Bank's basis for terminating this Motion was denied.

Page 1 of 10
On May 25, 2000, Far East Bank directly filed SINCE WHAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL IS
its Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of THE DECISION OF THE RAB XII, IT OUGHT TO
Appeal before the National Labor Relations HAVE BEEN WHAT THE HONORABLE
Commission. COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE REVIEWED AS AN
APPELLATE BODY YET NOT ONLY WAS THE
On April 30, 2001, the National Labor Relations DECISION OF RAB XII SKIPPED BY THE
Commission Fifth Division issued a HONORABLE COMMISSION BUT IN
Resolution10 reversing and setting aside the DETERMINING THE FACT [sic] OF THE CASE THE
April 25, 2000 Decision of Executive Labor HONORABLE COMMISSION ENTIRELY
Arbiter Cueto.11 It held that Far East Bank's DEPENDED ON THE MATTERS PRESENTED IN
delay of "a few days"12 in filing its Position THE POSITION PAPER OF RESPONDENTS, THE
Paper was excusable, especially considering ADMISSION OR THE DENIAL OF ADMISSION OF
that it and its counsel were based in different THE SAME WAS NOT ONLY THE FIRST ISSUE
cities, Cotabato City and General Santos City, BUT THE RESOLUTION OF WHICH WAS SKIPPED
respectively.13 It added that it was successfully BY THE HONORABLE COMMISSION.
shown by Far East Bank that Chua "had indeed
committed irregular acts in relation to his [sic] C
position as Assistant Vice President[,]"14 "acts
that would constitute for [sic] loss of trust and EVERY MATERIAL POINT RAISED BY
confidence[,]"15 thereby justifying the RESPONDENTS IN ITS POSITION PAPER THE
termination of her employment. ADMISSION AND DENIAL OF WHICH HAS NOT
BEEN RESOLVED BY THE HONORABLE
Chua then filed a Motion for COMMISSION HAS BEEN TOUCHED IN THE
Reconsideration16 dated May 25, 2001, relying DECISION OF THE RAB XII, WHICH IS THE
on the following grounds: CENTERPIECE OF REVIEW, AND THE POSITION
A PAPER OF APPELLEE WHICH LEGALLY, FORMS
PART OF THE RECORD[S] OF THE CASE, AND
ALTHOUGH THE HONORABLE COMMISSION THE LEAST THAT THE HONORABLE
WAS CORRECT IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION COULD HAVE DONE WAS TO
PRESENTATION OF THE ISSUES IN THAT THE 1st REVIEW BOTH THEN COMPARE IT WITH THE
WAS "WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS ARE FACTS AS PRESENTED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN
GUILTY OF INEXCUSABLE DELAY AND NEGLECT THEIR POSITION PAPER WITH THE
FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT THEIR POSITION DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON HAND AS
PAPER BEFORE THE ARBITRATION BRANCH OF CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE, AND HAD THIS
ORIGIN[,]" BECAUSE IF THE ANSWER IS IN THE BEEN DONE, UNDOUBTEDLY, THE CONCLUSION
NEGATIVE, THEN THE APPEAL SHOULD BE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ARRIVED AT WAS
CONFINED ONLY TO THE APPEALED DECISION THAT THE CASE OF APPEALLEE [sic] IS
OF THE RAB XII, YET, NOT ONLY WAS THIS MERITORIOUS.19
ISSUE SKIPPED BY THE HONORABLE In the Resolution dated December 21, 2001,
COMMISSION, BUT IN RESOLVING THIS ISSUE, the National Labor Relations Commission
THE HONORABLE COMMISSION DEPENDED ON denied Chua's Motion for Reconsideration.
THE POSITION PAPER OF APPELLANTS, WHICH
WAS THE VERY FIRST ISSUE UNDER Aggrieved, Chua filed a Petition21 for Certiorari
CONSIDERATION. under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure before the Court of Appeals. Chua
B averred the following issue in this Petition:

Page 2 of 10
 Court of Appeals concluded that "no appeal
ISSUE before public respondent [National Labor
Relations Commission] could have been
WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT perfected." Thus, Executive Labor Arbiter
ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF Cueto's April 25, 2000 Decision "has attained
JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF finality[.]"
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN TAKING In its assailed March 20, 2009 Resolution,35 the
COGNIZANCE OF THE DIRECTLY FILED Court of Appeals denied Far East Bank's
UNPERFECTED APPEAL OF RESPONDENTS22 Motion for Reconsideration.
Specifically, Chua claimed that the National
Hence, this Petition37 was filed.
Labor Relations Commission should not have
entertained Far East Bank's appeal for the
For resolution is the sole issue of whether
following reasons: first, it failed to "pay the
Executive Labor Arbiter Quintin B. Cueto Ill's
appeal fee of P100.00;"23 second, it failed to
April 25, 2000 Decision attained finality in light
"post the appeal bond equivalent to the
of petitioner Far East Bank and Trust Co.'s
amount of the monetary award;"24 third, it
direct filing of its appeal before the National
failed to "attach a certification of non-forum
Labor Relations Commission, rather than
shopping[;]"25 and fourth, it "directly filed its
before the Regional Arbitration Branch XII,
appeal with public respondent [National Labor
Cotabato City.
Relations Commission] contrary to the
requirements of Rule VI, Section 3 of the New I
Rules of Procedure of the National Labor
Relations Commission."
Petitioner admits to directly filing its
Memorandum of Appeal before the National
Labor Relations Commission.38 However, it
In its assailed June 30, 2008 Decision, the Court
banks on what it claims was the National Labor
of Appeals Twenty-third Division declared the
Relations Commission's "discretion to admit
April 30, 2001 and December 21, 2001
appeal[s] directly filed with it on reasonable
Resolutions of the National Labor Relations
and meritorious grounds[.]"39 It argues thus
Commission null and void and reinstated
that "[i]n accepting the appeal memorandum
Executive Labor Arbiter Cueto's April 25, 2000
which petitioner directly filed with it, the
Decision.
[National Labor Relations Commission] was
guided by its own policy that, in line with the
Citing Rule VI, Sections 3 and 430 of the 1999 jurisprudence set by the Supreme Court,
Rules of Procedure of the National Labor technicalities in labor cases must yield to
Relations Commission31 which were then in substantial justice."
effect, the Court of Appeals stated that it "is
clear and unambiguous that the memorandum
Apart from this, petitioner faults respondent
on appeal must be filed with the Regional
for raising the issue of jurisdiction for the first
Arbitration Branch which rendered the
time in her Rule 65 Petition before the Court of
decision sought to be appealed." As Far East
Appeals. It asserts that because of
Bank's Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of
respondent's failure to timely raise this matter
Appeal were both directly filed before the
while petitioner's own appeal was still pending
National Labor Relations Commission (rather
before the National Labor Relations
than being filed before the Regional
Commission, estoppel set in and respondent
Arbitration Branch XII, Cotabato City), the

Page 3 of 10
could not belatedly repudiate the adverse al.:45
decision by only then invoking the issue of
jurisdiction. A party may be estopped or barred from
raising a question in different ways and for
different reasons. Thus we speak of estoppel in
Petitioner's contentions are well-taken. A pais, of estoppel by deed or by record, and of
mere procedural lapse in the venue where estoppel by laches.
petitioner filed its Memorandum of Appeal is
not fatal to its cause. This is especially so in Laches, in a general sense, is failure or neglect,
light of how respondent estopped herself in for an unreasonable and unexplained length of
failing to raise the issue of jurisdiction while time, to do that which, by exercising due
petitioner's appeal was pending before the diligence, could or should have been done
National Labor Relations Commission. earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a
Respondent is bound by her inaction and right within a reasonable time, warranting a
cannot belatedly invoke this issue on certiorari presumption that the party entitled to assert it
before the Court of Appeals. either has abandoned it or declined to assert
it.
II
The doctrine of laches or of "stale demands" is
In a long line of cases, this court has held that based upon grounds of public policy which
"[a]lthough the issue of jurisdiction may be requires, for the peace of society, the
raised at any stage of the proceedings as the discouragement of stale claims and, unlike the
same is conferred by law, it is nonetheless statute of limitations, is not a mere question of
settled that a party may be barred from raising time but is principally a question of the
it on ground of laches or estoppel." inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or
claim to be enforced or asserted.
The rule is stated in La'O v. Republic of the
Philippines and the Government Service It has been held that a party cannot invoke the
Insurance System: jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative
relief against his opponent and, after obtaining
While it is true that jurisdiction over the or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or
subject matter of a case may be raised at any question that same jurisdiction. In the case just
stage of the proceedings since it is conferred cited, by way of explaining the rule, it was
by law, it is nevertheless settled that a party further said that the question whether the
may be barred from raising it on the ground of court had jurisdiction either of the subject
estoppel. After voluntarily submitting a cause matter of the action or of the parties was not
and encountering an adverse decision on the important in such cases because the party is
merits, it is improper and too late for the barred from such conduct not because the
losing party to question the jurisdiction of the judgment or order of the court is valid and
court. A party who has invoked the jurisdiction conclusive as an adjudication, but for the
of a court over a particular matter to secure reason that such a practice cannot be tolerated
affirmative relief cannot be permitted to — obviously for reasons of public policy.
afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to
escape liability.44 (Citations omitted) Furthermore, it has also been held that after
voluntarily submitting a cause and
The wisdom that underlies this was explained
encountering an adverse decision on the
at length in Tijam, et al. v. Sibonghanoy, et
merits, it is too late for the loser to question
the jurisdiction or power of the court. And in

Page 4 of 10
Littleton vs. Burgess, 16 Wyo. 58, the Court courts[,]"47 except of this court. Article VIII,
said that it is not right for a party who has Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution provides
affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a court that "[t]he judicial power shall be vested in
in a particular matter to secure an affirmative one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as
relief, to afterwards deny that same may be established by law."
jurisdiction to escape a penalty.
For their part, administrative agencies are
Upon this same principle is what We said in statutory constructs. Thus, they are limited by
the three cases mentioned in the resolution of the statutes which created them and which
the Court of Appeals of May 20, 1963 (supra) spelled out their powers and functions. "It is a
— to the effect that we frown upon the fundamental rule that an administrative
"undesirable practice" of a party submitting agency has only such powers as are expressly
his case for decision and then accepting the granted to it by law and those that are
judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for necessarily implied in the exercise
lack of jurisdiction, when adverse — as well as thereof[.]"48 Administrative agencies may
in Pindangan etc. vs. Dans et al., G. R. L-14591, exercise quasi-judicial powers, but only to the
September 26, 1962; Montelibano et al. vs. extent warranted by administrative action.
Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., G. R. L-15092; They may not exercise judicial functions. This is
Young Men Labor Union etc. vs. the Court of illustrated in Philex Mining Corporation v.
Industrial Relations et al., G. R. L-20307, Feb. Zaldivia, et al.,49 which distinguished between
26, 1965, and Mejia vs. Lucas, 100 Phil. p. judicial questions and "questions of fact."50 It
277.46 (Citations omitted) is only the latter — questions of fact — which
III was ruled to be within the competence of the
Director of Mines to resolve:
The rationale that animates the rule on
estoppel vis-a-vis jurisdiction applies with We see nothing in sections 61 and 73 of the
equal force to quasi-judicial agencies as it does Mining Law that indicates a legislative intent
to courts. The public policy consideration that to confer real judicial power upon the Director
frowns upon the undesirable practice of n of Mines. The very terms of section 73 of the
submitting a case for decision only to Mining Law, as amended by Republic Act No.
subsequently decry the supposed lack of 4388, in requiring that the adverse claim must
jurisdiction is as compelling in cases "state in full detail the nature, boundaries and
concerning the National Labor Relations extent of the adverse claim" show that the
Commission as it is to courts of law. conflicts to be decided by reason such adverse
claim refer primarily to questions of fact. This
In this respect, it is of no consequence that is made even clearer by the explanatory note
distinctions may be drawn between to House Bill No. 2522, later to become
administrative agencies, on the one hand, and Republic Act 4388, that "sections 61 and 73
judicial bodies, on the other. that refer to the overlapping of claims are
amended to expedite resolutions of mining
Courts derive their authority from the conflicts. . . ." The controversies to be
Constitution's recognition that they shall be submitted and resolved by the Director of
the sole and exclusive investees of judicial Mines under the sections refer therefore only
power. This, even as the Constitution leaves to to the overlapping of claims, and
the legislature the authority to establish lower administrative matters incidental thereto.
courts, as well as "to define, prescribe, and
apportion the jurisdiction of the various As already shown, petitioner's adverse claim is

Page 5 of 10
not one grounded on overlapping of claims nor 2. Termination disputes;
is it a mining conflict arising out of mining If accompanied with a
locations (there being only one involved) but claim for
one originating from the alleged fiduciary or reinstatement, those
contractual relationship between petitioner cases that workers may
and locator Scholey and his transferees file involving wages,
Yrastorza and respondent Zaldivia. As such, the rates of pay, hours of
adverse claim is not within the executive or work and other terms
administrative authority of the mining director and conditions of
to resolve, but in that of the courts, as it has employment;
been correctly held, on the basis of the
doctrine stated in Espinosa vs. Makalintal, 79 3. Claims for actual,
Phil. 134.51 (Emphasis supplied) moral, exemplary and
other forms of
Unlike courts, the National Labor Relations
damages arising from
Commission's existence is not borne out of
the employer-
constitutional fiat. It owes its existence to
employee relations:
Article 213 of the Labor Code:
4. Cases arising from any
Art. 213. National Labor Relations violation of Article 264
Commission. There shall be a National Labor of this Code, including
Relations Commission which shall be attached questions involving the
to the Department of Labor and Employment legality of strikes and
for program and policy coordination only,
lockouts; and
composed of a Chairman and fourteen (14)
Members. (Emphasis in the original) 5. Except claims for
So, too, its jurisdiction (as well as those of Employees
Labor Arbiters) is spelled out by Article 217 of Compensation, Social
the Labor Security, Medicare and
maternity benefits, all
Art. 217. Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and other claims arising
the Commission. from employer-
employee relations,
1. Except as otherwise provided including those of
under this Code, the Labor persons in domestic or
Arbiters shall have original and household service,
exclusive jurisdiction to hear involving an amount
and decide, within thirty (30) exceeding five
calendar days after the thousand pesos
submission of the case by the (P5,000.00) regardless
parties for decision without of whether
extension, even in the absence accompanied with a
of stenographic notes, the claim for
following cases involving all reinstatement.
workers, whether agricultural
or non-agricultural:
1. Unfair labor practice
cases;

Page 6 of 10
 2. The Commission shall have Coloma promulgated on July 7, 1986. In the
exclusive appellate jurisdiction case of Akay Printing Press vs. Minister of
over all cases decided by Labor Labor and Employment, the Court ruled as
Arbiters. follows:

3. Cases arising from the

When the illegal dismissal case was pending
interpretation or
before the MOLE Regional Director, petitioner
implementation of collective
did not raise the issue of jurisdiction either
bargaining agreements and
during the hearing or in its subsequent motion
those arising from the
for reconsideration. Its defense was a stout
interpretation or enforcement
denial of the dismissal of private respondents,
of company personnel policies
who were averred instead to have abandoned
shall be disposed of by the
their work. After the adverse decision of the
Labor Arbiter by referring the
Regional Director and upon the elevation of
same to the grievance
the case on appeal to the Ministry of Labor and
machinery and voluntary
Employment, still no jurisdictional challenge
arbitration as may be provided
was made. It was only when petitioner moved
in said agreements. (Emphasis
to reconsider the MOLE decision of affirmance
in the original)
that it assailed the jurisdiction of the Regional
Director. But then, it was too late. Estoppel
Nevertheless, there is no basis for
had barred him from raising the issue,
distinguishing between courts and quasi-
regardless of its merits. (December 6, 1985,
judicial agencies with respect to the effects of
140 SCRA 381, 384)53
a party's failure to timely assail errors in
jurisdiction. These effects have nothing to do Likewise, as stated in M. Ramirez Industries v.
with the distinction between the competencies Secretary of Labor and Employment:54
of courts and quasi-judicial agencies as spelled
out by the Constitution and statutes. Moreover, petitioner is estopped from
questioning the jurisdiction of the Regional
In a long line of cases, this court has held the Director, having previously invoked it by filing
rule on estoppel vis-a-vis jurisdiction, as a motion to dismiss. As has been held:
initially articulated in 1968 in Tijam to be
equally applicable to cases involving the [A] party can not invoke the jurisdiction of a
National Labor Relations Commission (and its court to secure affirmative relief against his
related agencies). opponent and, after obtaining or failing to
obtain such relief, repudiate or question that
By way of example, in Philippine Overseas same jurisdiction.
Drilling and Oil Development Corporation v.
Hon. Ministry of Labor,52 this court stated: In the case just cited, by way of explaining the
rule, it was further said that the question
Petitioner is now barred by estoppel from whether the court had jurisdiction either of
raising the issue of jurisdiction, regardless of the subject-matter of the action or of the
its merits. In the case of Tijam vs. parties is barred from such conduct not
Sibonghanoy, April 15, 1968, 23 SCRA 29, the because the judgment or order of the court is
Court laid down the rule of estoppel to raise valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but for
the question of jurisdiction. This rule was the reason that such a practice can not be
reiterated in numerous cases enumerated in tolerated — obviously for reasons of public
the decision in the case of Solicitor General vs. policy.

Page 7 of 10
 a memorandum of appeal which shall state the
Furthermore, it has also been held that after grounds relied upon and the arguments in
voluntarily submitting a cause and support thereof; the relief prayed for; and a
encountering an adverse decision on the statement of the date when the appellant
merits, it is too late for the loser to question received the appealed decision, order or award
the jurisdiction or power of the court . . . And and proof of service on the other party of such
in Littleton vs. Burges, Wyo, 58, the Court said appeal.
that it is not right for a party who has affirmed
and invoked the jurisdiction of a court in a A mere notice of appeal without complying
particular matter to secure an affirmative with the other requisite aforestated shall not
relief, to afterwards deny that same stop the running of the period for perfecting
jurisdiction to escape a penalty.55 an appeal.
IV
(b) The appellee may file with the Regional
Article 218 of the Labor Code vests in the Arbitration Branch, Regional Office or in the
National Labor Relations Commission the POEA where the appeal was filed, his answer
authority to adopt procedural rules: or reply to appellant's memorandum of
appeal, not later than ten (10) calendar days
Art. 218. Powers of the Commission. The from receipt thereof. Failure on the part of the
Commission shall have the power and appellee who was properly furnished with a
authority: copy of the appeal to file his answer or reply
within the said period may be construed as a
To promulgate rules and regulations governing waiver on his part to file the same.
the hearing and disposition of cases before it
and its regional branches, as well as those (c) Subject to the provisions of Article 218,
pertaining to its internal functions and such once the appeal is perfected in accordance
rules and regulations as may be necessary to with these rules, the Commission may limit
carry out the purposes of this Code[.] itself to reviewing and deciding specific issues
It is consistent with this power that the that were elevated on appeal. (Emphasis in the
National Labor Relations Commission adopted original)
the rules that are at the core of the present Rule VI, Section 4 of the same rules stipulates
controversy. Rule VI, Section 3 of the 1999 where appeals must be
Rules of Procedure of the National Labor filed:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
Relations Commission that were in effect when ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
petitioner appealed from Executive Labor Section 4. Where Filed. — The appeal in five (5)
Arbiter Cueto's Decision provides for the legibly typewritten copies shall be filed with
requisites that must be satisfied in order that the respective Regional Arbitration Branch, the
an appeal from a decision of a Labor Arbiter Regional Office, or the Philippine Overseas
may be perfected:LawlibraryofCRAlaw Employment Administration where the case
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary was heard and decided. (Emphasis in the
Section 3. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal. original)
— (a) The appeal shall be filed within the This venue for filing appeals is unequivocal.
reglementary period as provided in Section 1 The Court of Appeals was thus correct in
of this Rule; shall be under oath with proof of stating that it "is clear and unambiguous that
payment of the required appeal fee and the the memorandum on appeal must be filed
posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in with the Regional Arbitration Branch which
Section 5 of this Rule; shall be accompanied by rendered the decision sought to be

Page 8 of 10
appealed."56redarclaw b. the relief sought; and

It is not disputed that this rule was violated by c. a statement of the date when
petitioner. In the present Petition, petitioner the assailed decision was
categorically admitted that it "filed its received; and
memorandum of appeal directly with the
[National Labor Relations (6) Proof of service of the appeal on the
Commission.]"57redarclaw adverse party.
Likewise, this conclusion presupposes that
Thus, there is basis for positing, as respondent procedural rules in labor cases must be
and the Court of Appeals did, that "no appeal adhered to with uncompromising exactitude.
before [the National Labor Relations This is misguided. The same rules which
Commission] could have been respondent and the Court of Appeals rely on
perfected[.]"58 The logical consequence of this allow for the liberal application of procedural
position, assuming it is correct, is that rules. In Rule VII, Section 10, it
Executive Labor Arbiter Cueto's April 25, 2000 states:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
Decision "has attained finality[.]"59redarclaw ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Section 10. Technical rules not binding. — The
This conclusion, however, fails to consider that rules of procedure and evidence prevailing in
the error committed by petitioner pertains to courts of law and equity shall not be
the place for filing appeals and not the controlling and the Commission shall use every
requisites for perfecting an appeal which Rule and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts
VI, Section 3 enumerates. The place where in each case speedily and objectively, without
appeals must be filed is governed by a distinct regard to technicalities of law procedure, all in
provision (i.e., Section 4) and is thus a matter the interest of due process.
that is different from the requisites for
perfecting appeals. Per Section 3, only the In any proceeding before the Commission, the
following are necessary in order that petitioner parties may be represented by legal counsel
may perfect its appeal:LawlibraryofCRAlaw but it shall be the duty of the Chairman, any
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary Presiding commissioner or Commissioner to
(1) Filing within the applicable reglementary exercise complete control of the proceedings
period as provided by Section 1;60redarclaw at all stages.

(2) That the appeal was under oath; The need for liberality in this case is
underscored by how the National Labor
(3) That the appeal fee must have been paid; Relations Commission acquiesced to the filing
of an appeal directly before it. As pointed out
(4) That the appeal bond must have been by petitioner, not only did the National Labor
posted; Relations Commission admit its Memorandum
of Appeal, it also "required petitioner to pay
(5) A memorandum of appeal which the appeal fee and to post the required
states:LawlibraryofCRAlaw bond."61 As the agency statutorily vested with
jurisdiction over petitioner's appeal, petitioner
a. the grounds relied upon and could very easily have mistaken that the filing
the arguments in support of of its Memorandum of Appeal was rightly
the made before the National Labor Relations
appeal;chanRoblesvirtualLawli Commission. If at all, the provision that filing
brary of a Memorandum of Appeal must be made

Page 9 of 10
before the Regional Arbitration Branch is to seasonably act and failed to realize that she
merely a delegation of a function more was guilty of estoppel by laches, taking "an
appropriately pertaining to the appellate body unreasonable . . . length of time, to do that
itself. which, by exercising due diligence, could or
should have been done earlier[.]"63redarclaw
In any case, the National Labor Relations
Commission could have very easily advised Respondent cannot now profit from her own
petitioner if there was anything irregular with inaction. She actively participated in the
its direct filing of a Memorandum of Appeal. proceedings and vigorously argued her case
Its silence on this matter would have induced before the National Labor Relations
in petitioner no other reasonable conclusion Commission without the slightest indication
than that direct filing before the National that she found anything objectionable to the
Labor Relations Commission was in keeping conduct of those proceedings. It is thus but
with the procedural requirements for filing appropriate to consider her as acceding to and
appeals. bound by how the National Labor Relations
Commission was to resolve and, ultimately did
V resolve, petitioner's appeal. Its findings that
the requisites of substantive and procedural
Not only did the National Labor Relations due process were satisfied in terminating
Commission acquiesce to the direct filing of an respondent's employment now stand
appeal before it, so did respondent. The undisturbed.
matter of the propriety of the National Labor
Relations Commission's assumption of WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on
jurisdiction was never raised by respondent Certiorari is GRANTED. The June 30, 2008
before the Commission. Even after petitioner's Decision and the March 20, 2009 Resolution of
appeal had been initially decided against her the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 69361-
and she filed her Motion for Reconsideration, MIN are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The April
respondent totally overlooked this matter. As 30, 2001 Resolution of the National Labor
was evident from the recital of Relations Commission is REINSTATED.
grounds62 invoked in her Motion for
Reconsideration, respondent's contentions SO ORDERED.
centered merely on the National Labor
Relations Commission's supposedly erroneous
reliance on petitioner's Position Paper.

The Court of Appeals thus failed to account for

the crucial fact that the issue of jurisdiction
was invoked by respondent only upon her
elevation to it of the case. It failed to recognize
that respondent had all the opportunity to
raise this issue before the very tribunal whom
she claims to have had no competence to rule
on the appeal, but that it was only after the
same tribunal ruled against her twice — first,
in its initial Resolution and second, in denying
her reconsideration — that she saw it fit to
assail its jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals
failed to see through respondent's own failure

Page 10 of 10