4/15/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly were selected by the parties themselves. This is precisely what makes voluntary arbitration different from compulsory arbitration. Let then the parties herein remain faithful to that intent. Let the parties be true to their commitment. And let the difference of this mode of dispute settlement be upheld as distinguished from the other modes, in the higher interest of substantive justice, as enshrined in the Philippine Constitution. SO ORDERED.[35] Respondents moved for reconsideration but the Panel denied it in a Resolution[36] dated January 23, 2015.[37] Aside from denying the motion for lack of merit, the Panel also ruled that the same was filed out of time. Considering that respondents received the February 2, 2015 Decision on February 5, 2015, the motion should have been filed on February 15, 2015, the last day for the filing of the same even if the 10th day fell on a Sunday. Since respondents filed their motion for reconsideration the following day, the filing thereof was already a day late, rendering the Panel's assailed Decision final and executory. On April 23, 2015, petitioner moved for the resolution of her motion for execution of the Decision of the Panel.[38] On March 3, 2015, respondents filed a Manifestation with Opposition to Complainant's Motion for Execution (Manifestation with Opposition).[39] Records disclosed that the Panel had not acted on the same. Aggrieved, respondents filed on March 12, 2015 a Petition for Review (with Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction) before the CA.[40] Subsequently, or sometime in May 2015, respondents filed with the Panel a pleading entitled Reiterative Motion to Set Case for Clarificatory Conference (Reiterative Motion). [41] On appeal, the CA recognized the suppletory application of the Rules of Court and prevailing jurisprudence in the computation of periods in the filing of pleadings in court. Since the last day of the 10-day period to appeal fell on a Sunday, the CA held that the respondents timely filed their motion for reconsideration the next working day, or on February 16, 2015. It also held that respondents did not engage in forum shopping when they filed their Manifestation with Opposition as the same was just a response to petitioner's motion for execution, and not a second motion for reconsideration. In the same vein, respondents' Reiterative Motion only addressed petitioner's motion to resolve her motion for execution. Contrary to the ruling of the Panel, the CA found that respondents have successfully proved by substantial evidence that Manuel killed himself on October 8, 2013. Such notwithstanding, respondents remain liable under the parties' CBA tor death benefits, particularly Section 25.1 thereof. Since the same provision provides that the employer will shoulder the costs for the transportation and burial of Manuel's body in the https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66237 6/37