G.R. No. 159358 4 of 10 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/159358.htm Eureka contends that it filed a timely appeal with the NLRC on December 2, 1999, since it received the labor arbiters decision on November 22, 1999, not on November 21, 1999, as found by the NLRC. Eureka relies on the certification issued by the Postmaster of Malate; unfortunately, the certification could not be issued in time to be attached to Eurekas motion for reconsideration of the NLRCs dismissal of its appeal; Eureka filed its motion on February 18, 2000, and could only present the Postmasters certification on May 12, 2000, via a supplemental motion, because it took some time before the postal service could trace the mail matter. Eureka further argues that the most competent authority to state when the labor arbiters decision was served is the Malate Post Office the office that processed the mail and served it on Eureka. Thus, the postmasters certification should have been considered in determining the timeliness of Eurekas appeal. Eureka also asserts that the registry return card the NLRC relied upon is not even in the records of the NLRC. As between an inexistent registry return card and Eurekas postmasters certification, Eureka posits that the NLRC and the CA should have given more credence to the latter. Valencia, on the other hand, insists that Eurekas appeal was filed out of time, since it received the Labor Arbiters decision on November 21, 1999 (evidenced by the registry return card found on page 60 of the NLRC records), but filed its appeal only on December 2, 1999 i.e., after the lapse of the period to appeal. Valencia points out that the postmasters certification submitted by Eureka appears to be of dubious origin, as it was neither under oath nor properly sealed. Even if the postmasters certification was genuine, it could still not affect the case, as it was submitted after the period to file a motion for reconsideration had lapsed. Valencia also underscores the fact that Eureka did not file the correct amount of the bond to perfect its appeal with the NLRC; it filed a supersedeas bond in the amount of only P35,000.00, when the total amount of the monetary award granted to Valencia is US$3,330.00, or the equivalent of P134,232.30, [9] plus SR$200.00. THE COURTS RULING We deny the petition for lack of merit. 1/28/2016 12:50 PM