1

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 71177 February 29, 1988
ERECTORS, INC., petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
AND DANILO CRIS, respondents.
that the private respondent was estopped from questioning the legality of
his termination as he already voluntarily and freely received his
termination pay. The POEA, on September 27,1984, rendered a decision
adverse to petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered ordering the
respondents ERECTORS, INC. and SOCIETE
AUXILLAIRE D'ENTERPRISES (S.A.E.) jointly and
severally, to pay the complainant, DANILO CRIS the
sum of SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY
SIX DOLLARS AND SIXTY SIX CENTS ($ 7,166.6), or
its equivalent in Philippine Currency at the time of actual
payment, representing the unpaid salaries for the
unexpired term of complainant's contract. 1

SARMIENTO, J.:
This case should not have reached this Tribunal. It should have, in fact,
been terminated three years ago but for the petitioner's counsels who
had the temerity to cite a non-existent law with the obvious intention of
delaying the proceedings if not outrightly evading financial responsibility
under the law. This actuation, indeed, is flagrant dishonesty. We cannot
let it pass.
But before we proceed, a recital of the background of the controversy is
in order.
The private respondent, Danilo Cris, a contract worker as Earthworks
Engineer in Taif, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, filed the case with the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) on February 27,
1984 for the illegal termination of his contract of employment with the
petitioner herein, Erectors, Inc. The petitioner, as a defense, contended
The decision was received by the petitioner on October 25, 1984. Fifteen
days later, or on November 9 of the same year, the petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration with the respondent National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC). The motion which was treated as an appeal was
dismissed by the NLRC "for having been filed out of time." 2
The petitioner, through counsel, alleged that the respondent NLRC
committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case and affirmed
that the motion for reconsideration or appeal was seasonably filed
explaining thus:
xxx xxx xxx
While it is true that between 25 October 1984 (date of
receipt of the POEA decision) and 09 November
1984 (actual date of filing of petitioner's motion for
reconsideration), there were actually fifteen (15)

calendar days, however, it can not be disputed that
within said period there were only ten (10) working days,
and five (5) non-working or legal holidays, which were as
follows:
October 26, 1984--Saturday
October 27,1984--Sunday
November 1, 1984--All Saint's Day
November 3, 1984--Saturday
November 4,198--Sunday 3
xxx xxx xxx
In support of its contention, the petitioner cited two provisions allegedly of
the 1984 POEA rules and procedures, specifying Rule XXIV, sec. 1, and
Rule XXV, sec. 2, thereof, which purportedly provide:
Rule XXV
xxx xxx xxx
Section 2. Finality of Decision, Order or Award all
decisions, orders or award shall become final after the
lapse of ten (10) working days from receipt of a copy
thereof by the parties and no appeal has been perfected
within same period.
RULE XXIV
2
Section 1. Motion for Reconsideration. The aggrieved
party may within ten (10) working days from receipt of
the decision, order or resolution of the Administration,
may file for a motion for reconsideration; otherwise, the
decision shall be final and executory (Emphasis
supplied) 4
These cited rules do not exist. Nowhere in any law or rules relative to the
POEA may the above provisions be found.
The POEA was created only on May 1, 1982 by virtue of Executive Order
No. 797. Pursuant to the said Executive Order, the then Minister of Labor,
Blas F. Ople promulgated on September 5, 1983 the POEA Rules and
Regulations on Overseas Employment which took effect on January 1,
1984. These 1984 Rules were superseded on May 21, 1985 by the
POEA Rules & Regulations.
For the reason that the petitioner's appeal with the NLRC was filed on
November 9,1984, the 1984 Rules should govern. And this was precisely
what the petitioner insisted upon the POEA rules obtaining in 1984
must be applied. 5 Yet therein, it is clear that the period for perfecting an
appeal or a Motion for Reconsideration is ten (10) calendar days. The
pertinent rule on the matter is found in Book VII, Rule 5, of the 1984
Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment (POEA/MOLE) to wit:
Section 1. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR
APPEAL. The aggrieved party may, within ten
(10) calendar days from receipt of the decision, order or
resolution file a motion for reconsideration which shall
specify in detail the particular errors and objections,
otherwise the decision shall be final and executory. Such
motion for reconsideration shall be treated as an appeal

as provided in this Rule otherwise the same shall not be
entertained.
The above rule is expressed in a language so simple and precise that
there is no necessity to interpret it.
Moreover, as early as 1982, this Court, in the landmark case of Vir-Jen
Shipping & Marine Services, Inc. vs. NLRC 6 construed the ten (10) day
period for filing of appeals 7 from decisions of Labor Arbiters or
compulsory arbitrators as ten (10) calendar days, as well as the raison d'
etre for the shorter period, thus:
xxx xxx xxx
...if only because We believe that it is precisely in the
interest of labor that the law has commanded that labor
cases be promptly, if not peremptorily, disposed of. Long
periods for any acts to be done by the contending
parties can be taken advantage of more by management
than by labor. Most labor claims are decided in their
favor and management is generally the appellant. Delay,
in most instances, gives the employers more opportunity
not only to prepare even ingenious defense, what with
well-paid talented lawyers they can afford, but even to
wear out the efforts and meager resources of the
workers, to the point that not infrequently the latter either
give up or compromise for less than what is due them.
xxx xxx xxx
The POEA rule applicable in this case is precisely in consonance with the
above ruling in that it expressed in no uncertain terms that the period for
appeal is ten (10) calendar days. For "not even the Secretary of Labor
3
has the power to amend or alter in any material sense whatever the law
itself unequivocably specifies or fixes." 8
There is, thus, no doubt that the law mandates that the period for filing a
motion for reconsideration or appeal with the NLRC is ten (10) calendar
days and not ten (10) working days.
It is, therefore, obvious that the counsels for the petitioner deliberately
tried to mislead this Court if only to suit their client's ends. On this regard,
said counsels have much explaining to do.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is hereby
DISMISSED and the assailed Resolution of the public respondent, dated
December 28, 1984, AFFIRMED. The Temporary Restraining Order
issued by this Court on July 10, 1985 is hereby LIFTED. The counsels for
the petitioner are also admonished for foisting a non-existent rule with the
warning that repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with
more severely. With triple costs against the petitioner.
This Decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.
SO ORDERED.
Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Paras and Padilla, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Rendered by POEA Administrator Patricia A. Sto.
Tomas.
 4

2 Penned by Ricardo C. Castro and concurred in by manifested that the source of the said rules is the 1984
Cecilio T. Sero and Federico O. Borromeo. Rules and Procedures of the POEA but did not bother to
submit a copy thereof to this Court.
3 Rollo, 4.
6 No. L-58011-12, July 20,1982,115 SCRA 347.
4 Rollo, 4.
7 Art. 223 of the Labor Code.
5 In a resolutions dated October 20 and December 16,
1987, we ordered the petitioner to furnish us with the 8 Id.
source of the rules appearing on page 3 of the petition.
The petitioner, in compliance with the resolution