Technical failure

Under the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Rules of Procedure (Section 3a Rule VI), the notice of appeal from the ruling of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC shall be accompanied by a memorandum of appeal. A mere notice of appeal shall not stop the running of the period of perfecting an appeal. Supposing there is a memorandum of appeal but it is not served on the opposing party, will the appeal be dismissed? This is the question raised in this case of Manny.

Manny was hired as Chief Cook of SMA Inc.’s vessel. After only six months on the job, he was dismissed from the service. Believing that he was dismissed illegally since he was not even formally notified of the charges against him, Manny sued SMA before the NLRC.

For its defense, SMA alleged that from the very start Manny already showed signs of deviant behavior and abrasiveness. He would figure in violent confrontations with his fellow workers; caught lying in bed, drinking beer, roaming around the vessel chatting when he was supposed to be cooking. His laziness and insubordination had been observed and reported several times by his co-workers and superiors. Initially, SMA said it was lenient to Manny, but he continued committing several intolerable offenses, the last of which was the theft of cigarettes thus compelling the Ship Captain to dismiss him. No affidavit or piece of Company record was presented by SMA to prove these acts imputed to Manny. But the labor Arbiter still found his dismissal to be legal and thus dismissed his complaint.

Manny appealed the ruling to the NLRC by timely filing the notice of appeal and his memorandum of appeal. But he failed to furnish SMA with a copy of his memorandum. Acting on the appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and found Manny’s dismissal illegal. The NLRC said that SMA failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that Manny committed the imputed acts. Furthermore, the record is bereft of any showing that formal notice of the charge was given to Manny prior to his dismissal, according to the NLRC.

SMA filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this ruling raising only the procedural issue of Manny’s failure to serve a copy of his memorandum of appeal. SMA argued that such failure did not stop the running of the period of appeal, so the Labor Arbiter’s decision had become final and executory. Besides, SMA argued that it was denied due process as it was not given the opportunity to refute Manny’s allegations in his memorandum. But the NLRC denied this motion. On appeal by certiorari to the Court of Appeals (CA), the latter affirmed the resolution of the NLRC. Were the NLRC and the CA correct?

Yes. Failure to serve a copy of the memorandum of appeal upon the opposing party does not bar the NLRC from entertaining the appeal. Such failure is not jurisdictional defect and does not justify the dismissal of the appeal. It is a mere formal lapse, an excusable neglect.

Even if SMA is not furnished a copy of Manny’s memorandum, its rights to due process has not been violated. SMA eventually became a participant in the proceedings on appeal when it filed a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision. Since the entire record of the case on appeal is open for review by the NLRC, the absence of an answer or opposition would not really have a significant bearing on the adjudication of the case, as would otherwise perhaps constitute a denial of SMA’s right to due process. Besides, SMA has already the opportunity to answer Manny’s appeal when it filed a motion for reconsideration of the earlier decision of the NLRC. Significantly however, SMA never touched on the merits of the case in his aforementioned motion for reconsideration. Instead, it relied solely on technicality which thereby reasonably creates the impression that its case is weak. In limiting its motion for reconsideration to procedural issues, SMA effectively waived its opportunity to be heard on the merits of the case. It was thus not deprived of its right to due process. Deprivation of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a party was given a chance to be heard on its motion for reconsideration (Sunrise Manning Agency Inc. vs. NLRC et. al. G.R. 146703 November 18, 2004).

E-mail at: [email protected]