Upload
jonel-hilario
View
223
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/25/2019 102. Benguet Electric Cooperative vs NLRC
1/1
Benguet Electric Cooperative vs NLRC G.R. No.
89070, May 18, 199
!urispru"ence#
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 ling 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 ling of that pleading.
$acts#
There is no dispute about the fact that the Beneco Board members received
the decision of the labor Arbiter on 21 April 1!!. Accordingly, and because 1 "ay
1!! was a legal holiday, they had only up to 2 "ay 1!! within which to perfect
their appeal by ling their memorandum on appeal. #t is also not disputed that the
respondent Board members$ memorandum on appeal was posted by registered
mail on % "ay 1!! and received by the &'() the following day.
(espondent Board members, however, insist that their "emorandum on
Appeal was led on time because it was delivered for mailing on 1 "ay 1!! to the
*arcia )ommunications )ompany, a licensed private letter carrier. The Board
members in e+ect contend that the date of delivery to *arcia )ommunications was
the date of ling of their appeal memorandum.
%ssue##s the memo of appeal led on time
Ruling#
&o, B&) Board member$s contention runs counter to the established rule that
transmission through a private carrier or letter-forwarder // instead of the
0hilippine 0ost +ice // is not a recognied mode of ling 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 ling 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 ling of that pleading.