Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JOSE,
Complainant,
MAKUNAT CORPORATION,
Respondent. Hon. Labor Arbiter Carpio
x-------------------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
THE PARTIES
The Complainant is JOSE, of legal age, Filipino, and with address at 88 Mapayapa
Street, Brgy. Tatalon, Quezon City where he could be served with summons and other
business of meat processing with its principal business address at 9 San Pedro Street,
Brgy.San Miguel, Pasig City where it could be served with summons and other legal
On January 10, 2010, Honorable Labor Arbiter Carpio rendered judgment rendering that
500,000 Php, 13th month pay of 50,000 Php, service incentive leave of 30,000 Php,
holiday pay of 10,000Php, and 10% attorneys fee. The decision was received by Atty.
1
Makunat Corporation, through its counsel, filed an appeal on February 12, 2010,
accompanied by a motion to reduce bond and posted a cash bond of 25,000 Php.
ISSUE
ARGUMENTS
to appeal.
Article 223 (now Article 229) of the Labor Code governs appeals from, and the execution
of the Labor Arbiters decision. Pertinently, paragraph 7, Article 223 (229) of the Labor
Code provides:
xxxxx
ten (ten) calendar days from the receipt thereof by the parties.
(emphasis supplied)
xxxxx
For purposes of computing period of appeal, the same shall be counted from
receipt of the decision, award or order by the counsel of record of the party, and
not from the receipt thereof by the party himself. (Curaza v. NLRC, et al., G. R. No.
There is no dispute that Atty. Mabagal received a copy of the Labor Arbiters Decision on
January 20, 2010. Thus, pursuant to Article 223 of the Labor Code and Section 1, Rule
VI of the 2005 Revised Rules of the NLRC, adverse party through its counsel had only
until January 30, 2010, the 10th calendar day from January 10, 2010, within which to file
2
an appeal .However, for undue and unreasonable delay, the counsel of the adverse
party only filed an appeal to this Honorable Commission on February 12, 2010, 13 days
late.
appeals filed beyond the reglementary period on the basis of strong and compelling
reasons, such as serving the ends of justice and preventing a grave miscarriage
thereof. The purpose behind the limitation of the period of appeal is to avoid
(Republic Cement Corporation v. Guinmapang, G. R. No. 168190, August 24, 2009 citing
Manaya v. Alabang Country Club Incorporated, G.R. No. 168988, 19 June 2007, 525
SCRA 140; Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Angara, G.R. No. 142937,
In Republic Cement Corporation v. Guinmapang (August 24, 2009), the Court gave
credence to Guinmapangs explanation that the appeal was filed one day late because
Guinmapangs counsel suffered from an asthma attack a few days before the last day for
the filing of the appeal. The Court added that the delay of one day was not deliberate.
From the foregoing, the appeal made by the adverse party clearly does not conform to
the statutory requirement of 10-day period to appeal. Thus, the appeal dated on January
20, 2010, has lapsed on the reglementary period, is not perfected. Therefore, the
RELIEFS SOUGHT
Office to dismiss the appeal filed by the adverse party for utter lack of jurisdiction and a
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
3
Quezon City, December 17, 2016.
By:
ATTY. ELIZA M. MONTEMAYOR
Counsel for the Respondent
PTR NO. 4560388/01-03-11/Q.C.
IBP NO. 801459/01-03-11/Q.C.
Roll of Attorneys No. 36178
MCLE Compliance No. III-0017581
June 01, 2013
Copy furnished:
EXPLANATION
Copy of this Position Paper was sent by registered mail to the adverse party, instead of
personal service as required by the rules, because of the lack of personnel on the part of
the undersigned counsel to effect such personal service.