3 - SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, INC vs EVANGELINE C. COBARRUBIAS.docx

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 6 pages.

The preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 6 pages.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, INC.,vs.EVANGELINE C. COBARRUBIASG.R. No. 187104 August 3, 2010Facts:For failing to comply with the Collective Bargaining Agreement of the Respondent with the Petitioner, ThePetitioner suspends the respondent for one semester,To reverse the imposed forced leave, Cobarrubias sought recourse from the CBA’s grievance machinery.Despite the conferences held, the parties still failed to settle their dispute, prompting Cobarrubias to file acase for illegal forced leave or illegal suspension with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board of theDepartment of Labor and Employment, When circulation and mediation again failed, the parties submittedthe issues between them for voluntary arbitration before Voluntary Arbitrator (VA).VA dismissed the case. He noted that the CBA clearly authorized SLU to place its teaching employees onforced leave when they fail in the evaluation for three (3) years within a five-year period, without a distinctionon whether the three years fall within one or two CBA periods.Cobarrubias filed with the CA a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, but failed to pay therequired filing fees and to attach to the petition copies of the material portions of the record. The CAdismissed the petition outright for Cobarrubias’ procedural lapses. Cobarrubias received the CA resolution,dismissing her petition filed her motion for reconsideration, arguing that the ground cited is technical. She,nonetheless, attached to her motion copies of the material portions of the record and the postal moneyorders for ₱4,230.00. She maintained that the ends of justice and fair play are better served if the case isdecided on its merits.The CA reinstated the petition. It found that Cobarrubias substantially complied with the rules by paying theappeal fee in full and attaching the proper documents in her motion for reconsideration. SLU insisted that theVA decision had already attained finality for Cobarrubias’ failure to pay the docket fees on time. When the CAdenied the motion for reconsideration that followed, SLU filed the present petition for review on certiorari.Hence this case.Issue:Whether the CA erred in reinstating Cobarrubias’ petition despite her failure to pay the appeal fee within thereglementary period, and in reversing the VA decision.Held:Yes, Appeal is not a natural right but a mere statutory privilege, thus, appeal must be made strictly inaccordance with the provision set by law. Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides that appeals from thejudgment of the VA shall be taken to the CA, by filing a petition for review within fifteen (15) days from thereceipt of the notice of judgment. Furthermore, upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay to theCA clerk of court the docketing and other lawful fees; non-compliance with the procedural requirements shallbe a sufficient ground for the petition’s dismissal. Thus, payment in full of docket fees within the prescribed

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 6 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Spring
Professor
N/A
Tags
EVANGELINE C COBARRUBIAS, Cobarrubias

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture