Benguet Electric Cooperative vs.

NLRC, Cosalan

May 18, 1992

FACTS:

Cosalan is the general manager of Beneco. He was preventively suspended by the board(OLD)
of Beneco due to an alleged misappropriation of funds as founded by the COA. After the lapse
of 30 days without reinstatement, Cosalan filed a case for illegal dismissal with reinstatement
before the Labor Arbiter. LA ruled in favor of Cosalan. The Board(OLD) appealed the case to
the NLRC which partially ruled in favor of the board by extinguishing their liability. In the
meantime, a new set of board members were appointed. The new set of board sought the
execution of the decision of the LA stating that it is already final and executory because the
appeal to such case was filed out of time.

ISSUE:

WON the former appeal by the old board members of the decision of the LA is filed out of time.

HELD:

YES. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent Beneco Board members(OLD)
received the decision of the labor Arbiter on 21 April 1988. Accordingly, and because 1 May
1988 was a legal holiday, they had only up to 2 May 1988 within which to perfect their appeal by
filing their memorandum on appeal. It is also not disputed that the respondent Board members'
memorandum on appeal was posted by registered mail on 3 May 1988 and received by the
NLRC the following day.  Clearly, the memorandum on appeal was filed out of time.

Respondent Board members, however, insist that their Memorandum on Appeal was filed on
time because it was delivered for mailing on 1 May 1988 to the Garcia Communications
Company, a licensed private letter carrier. The Board members in effect contend that the date of
delivery to Garcia Communications was the date of filing of their appeal memorandum.

Respondent Board member's contention runs counter to the established rule that transmission
through a private carrier or letter-forwarder –– instead of the Philippine Post Office –– is not a
recognized mode of filing pleadings. The established rule is that the date of delivery of pleadings
to a private letter-forwarding agency is not to be considered as the date of filing thereof in court,
and that in such cases, the date of actual receipt by the court, and not the date of delivery to the
private carrier, is deemed the date of filing of that pleading.