G.R. No. 159358 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/159358.htm On February 18, 2000, Eureka moved for a reconsideration of the NLRCs decision, alleging that the Postmaster of the Malate Post Office would certify to the fact that the decision was actually delivered to Eureka on November 22, 1999, and not on November 21, 1999. Eureka attached a copy of the postmasters certification to its supplemental motion for reconsideration filed on May 12, 2000. The certification reads: This is to certify that according to the record of this office Registered Letter No. 0559 sent by the National Labor Relations Commission Quezon City processed on November 19, 1999 addressed to Eureka Personnel and Management Service, Inc. at 1913 L. Guinto St. Malate Manila was duly delivered on November 22, 1999. The NLRC denied Eurekas motion for reconsideration on August 31, 2000. [5] Eureka brought the NLRC decision to the CA through a petition for certiorari on the allegation that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed its appeal despite the postmasters certification that Eureka presented. The CA, in its March 28, 2003 decision, held that the NLRC did not abuse its [6] The CA discretion when it denied Eurekas appeal for having been filed out of time. found that the registry receipt [registry return card] is sufficient proof of the date of receipt of any notice served by the NLRC; thus, the NLRC was not obliged to accept the postmasters certification that Eureka offered to prove that it received the labor arbiters decision on November 22, 1999, and not on November 21, 1999. The CA also cited the Implementing Rules of the NLRC which specifically disallow any motion to extend the period to perfect the appeal; thus, it is only right not to consider petitioners supplemental motion for reconsideration. Lastly, the CA held that the case presented no exceptional reason for the CA to relax its procedural rules in Eurekas favor, nor even to change the findings of the labor arbiter. The CA also denied Eurekas Motion for Reconsideration in its August 7, 2003 Resolution. [7] THE PETITION [8] Eureka now comes to this Court through this petition for review on certiorari on the claim that the CA rulings in its March 28, 2003 decision and its August 7, 2003 resolution were legally incorrect. 3 of 10 1/28/2016 12:50 PM