Court of Appeals: Second Division

Republic of the Philippines
COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
*
SECOND DIVISION
CF SHARP CREW CA-G.R. SP. No. 114603

MANAGEMENT, INC.,
REEDEREI CLAUSE PETER Members:
OFFEN, and MR. ROBERTO
B. DAVANTES, SALAZAR-FERNANDO, R.A.
Petitioners, Chairperson,
PIZARRO, N. B., and
BARRIOS, M. M., JJ.
- versus -
Promulgated:
25 MARCH 2013
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION
and WILLIAM DELA CRUZ,
Respondents.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
RESOLUTION
BARRIOS, M. M., J:
From Our Decision dated 24 July 2012, affirming the

dismissal of their appeal by public respondent for having
been filed out of time, petitioners filed this instant Motion for
Reconsideration, asking for a liberal application of the Rules
of Procedure for the sake of substantial justice. They assert
that the reglementary period to appeal had never commenced
nor lapsed for their counsel has yet to receive an official copy
of the Labor Arbiter's decision. To prove non-receipt,
petitioners presented the affidavits of their counsels, Attys.
CA-G.R. S.P. NO. 114603 Page 2
RESOLUTION
Francisco S. Bulseco III and Federico Prieto, and their law

firm's secretary, Nycie Roldan, as well as the Official Logbook
of their law office. Parenthetically, petitioners discredit the
Registry Return Receipt and Postmaster's Certification for
being unreliable or incompetent to show the receipt of said
decision. They assert that the appeal should, nevertheless,
be given due course to give them ample opportunity to
present the merits of their case, free from the constraints of
technicalities.
We are not persuaded.
At the outset, it is glaringly apparent that the

arguments presented in this motion are mere rehash of those
already raised by petitioners in their Petition for Certiorari
and allied pleading, which were already considered and
passed upon in Our assailed Decision.
Once more, We stress that petitioners have concededly

failed to perfect their appeal with public respondent within
the ten-day (10) reglementary period. The official records on
file clearly show that the Labor Arbiter's decision was
received by petitioners' counsel Atty. Federico Prieto, through
their clerk Nycie Roldan, on 14 September 2009, as
evidenced by the Registry Return Receipt of Philippine Postal
Corporation and attested to by the Certification of the
Postmaster concerned. Accordingly, petitioners have ten (10)
calendar days, or until 24 September 2009, within which to
submit their Appeal Memorandum to public respondent
pursuant to its Rules of Procedure. However, petitioners
filed their Memorandum only on 14 October 2009, or some
twenty (20) days late from the last day of filing the same.
Certainly, petitioners failed to perfect their appeal within the
mandatory period.
Petitioners' stubborn insistence that their counsel had

never received a copy of the Labor Arbiter's decision is clearly
belied by the Postmaster's Certification and Registry Return
Receipt Card, which is considered as best evidence of service
by mail. Certainly, the affidavits of Attys. Prieto and Bulseco
RESOLUTION
III and Roldan as well as the Official Logbook of the law office
of petitioners' counsel cannot contradict the fact of receipt
considering that they are obviously self-serving. Neither can
such documents controvert the presumption of regularity
being accorded by law in the execution or issuance of the
Postmaster's Certification and Registry Return Receipt by
postal officials. Verily, as between the government-issued
Registry Return Receipt and the private and unverified log
book and affidavits of petitioners, the former should prevail.
By reason of petitioners' failure to adduce special and

meritorious justification for their non-observance of the rules
on appeal, a relaxation or liberal application of procedural
rules cannot be made. Verily, petitioners' cause was
aggravated by their counsel's inaction and gross negligence
in opting not to file the Appeal Memorandum within the
reglementary period, despite acquiring knowledge from
petitioners themselves that a copy of the Labor Arbiter's
decision was received by them about two (2) days after it was
sent to his law firm by mail. Notably, if only Atty. Prieto had
exercised reasonable diligence, he could have easily obtained
a copy of such decision from petitioners, and eventually
prepared and filed such Memorandum on time, or he could
have ascertained from the Labor Arbiter whether a copy of
the said decision was indeed sent. In fine, petitioners' casual
disregard of procedural rules deprived this Court of a chance
to decide on the case, bearing in mind that perfection of
appeals is not only mandatory, but jurisdictional.
WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration

is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
MANUEL M. BARRIOS
Associate Justice
RESOLUTION
WE CONCUR:
REMEDIOS A. SALAZAR-FERNANDO
Associate Justice
NORMANDIE B. PIZARRO
Associate Justice

Court of Appeals: Second Division

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Court of Appeals: Second Division

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Court of Appeals: Second Division

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

CF SHARP CREW CA-G.R. SP. No. 114603

From Our Decision dated 24 July 2012, affirming the

Francisco S. Bulseco III and Federico Prieto, and their law

We are not persuaded.

At the outset, it is glaringly apparent that the

Once more, We stress that petitioners have concededly

Petitioners' stubborn insistence that their counsel had

By reason of petitioners' failure to adduce special and

WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration

You might also like