Scribd
Upload
129 views1 page

343 Sublay Vs NLRC (2000) Case Digest

Elizabeth Sublay was employed as Chief Accountant by Euro-Swiss Food Inc. until being terminated in 1994. She claimed unjust dismissal and filed a case with the labor arbiter. The labor arbiter ordered separation pay for Sublay. Sublay appealed the decision to the NLRC but filed 7 days late. The NLRC dismissed the appeal for being untimely. Sublay appealed to the Supreme Court claiming the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding that the NLRC properly denied the appeal for missing the mandatory 10-day filing period and did not commit grave abuse of discretion.

Uploaded by

jovani ema
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
129 views1 page

343 Sublay Vs NLRC (2000) Case Digest

Elizabeth Sublay was employed as Chief Accountant by Euro-Swiss Food Inc. until being terminated in 1994. She claimed unjust dismissal and filed a case with the labor arbiter. The labor arbiter ordered separation pay for Sublay. Sublay appealed the decision to the NLRC but filed 7 days late. The NLRC dismissed the appeal for being untimely. Sublay appealed to the Supreme Court claiming the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding that the NLRC properly denied the appeal for missing the mandatory 10-day filing period and did not commit grave abuse of discretion.

Uploaded by

jovani ema
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

130104           January 31, 2000


ELIZABETH SUBLAY vs. NLRC

FACTS:

- On 16 May 1991 Elizabeth Sublay was employed by private respondent Euro-Swiss Food Inc. (EURO-SWISS) as
its Chief Accountant until her termination from the service on 31 December 1994.

- On the first day of December 1994 Sublay received a letter from the President of EURO-SWISS, informing her
of his decision to abolish the position of Chief Accountant for the reason that the computerization of the
accounting system as well as the burning down of its factory significantly reduced the company's operations
hence, according to Werner Berger, he could perform his functions with "minimal assistance from the encoder
and the accounting clerks."

- Sublay, in her complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of her 13th month pay against EURO-SWISS,
maintained that she was unjustly dismissed as there was no just and valid cause for her dismissal under Arts.
282, 283 and 284 of the Labor Code.

- The Labor Arbiter ordered EURO-SWISS to pay Sublay her separation pay equivalent to one (1) month for
every year of service or a total of P50,400.00.

- On 9 December 1996 Sublay appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC.

- On the basis of the facts established by the NLRC, Sublay's counsel of record Atty. Gabriel Marquez received
the Labor Arbiter's decision on 21 November 1996, hence, she had until 2 December 1996 (1 December 1996
being a Sunday) within which to appeal. However, Sublay through Atty. Raymond Paolo Alikpala filed her
appeal only on 9 December 1996 or seven (7) days late; consequently, the NLRC dismissed her appeal. 4

- Sublay is now before us ascribing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction to the NLRC in
denying outright her appeal on a mere "technicality" for having been filed out of time.

ISSUE: W/N the NLRC has jurisdiction to render the questioned decision final and executory by denying
Sublay’s appeal on a mere technicality for having been filed beyond the reglementary period.

RULING:

- It is doctrinally well-entrenched that the perfection of appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is
not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and failure to do so renders the questioned decision final and
executory, and deprives the appellate court or body of the legal authority to alter the final judgment, much
less to entertain, the appeal. As pointed out by petitioner, this Court has time and again sidestepped the rule
on the statutory or reglementary period for filing an appeal. We have resorted to this extraordinary measure
even at the expense of sacrificing order and efficiency if only to serve the higher ideals of justice and equity.
Yet we cannot respond with alacrity to every clamor of injustice and bend the rules to placate a vociferous
protestor crying and claiming to be a victim of a wrong. It is only in highly meritorious cases that this Court
opts not to strictly apply the rules and thus prevent a grave injustice from being done. Such does not obtain in
this case.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for failure of petitioner Elizabeth Sublay to sufficiently establish that
public respondent National Labor Relations Commission, in its assailed Decision committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying the appeal of petitioner for having been filed beyond
the ten (10)-day reglementary period.

You might also like