6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly markings and notation on the face and dorsal sides thereof showing "RTS" (meaning, "Return To Sender") and "MOVED." Still, we must rule that service upon PAL and the other petitioners was complete. With the service by registered mail being complete, the respondents only had 10 calendar days from the return of the mail within which to appeal in accordance with the Labor Code.[26] When they did not so appeal, the LA's decision became final and executory. With the LA's decision attaining finality, it was no longer legally feasible or permissible to modify the ruling through the expediency of a petition claiming that the termination of the petitioner's employment had been legal. Verily, the decision could no longer be reviewed, or in any way modified directly or indirectly by a higher court, not even by the Supreme Court.[27] The underlying reason for the rule is two-fold: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and (2) to put judicial controversies to an end, at the risk of occasional errors, inasmuch as controversies cannot be allowed to drag on indefinitely and the rights and obligations of every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of time.[28] The courts must guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result, and must frown upon any attempt to prolong controversies.[29] Grave abuse of discretion, as held in De los Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company,[30] "must be grave, which means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." Accordingly, the dismissal of the respondents' appeal, being fully warranted and in accord with jurisprudence, did not constitute grave abuse of discretion simply because the NLRC did not thereby act whimsically, or capriciously, or arbitrarily. WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for review on certiorari; REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on November 28, 2011 in CA-G.R. SP No. 120175; REINSTATES the decision issued on May 9, 2011 in NLRC LAC No. (M) 02000102-111; and ORDERS the respondents to pay the costs of suit. SO ORDERED. Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Leonen, and Gesmundo, JJ., concur. Martires, J., on wellness leave. March 1, 2018 NOTICE OF JUDGMENT Sirs/Mesdames: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63833 8/10