4/15/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Petitioner contends that the CA should not have entertained the appeal for being filed out of time. She points out that since respondents have only 10 days from receipt on February 26, 2015 of the Panel's January 23, 2015 Resolution, they should have filed their appeal on March 8, 2015. The 15-day period to appeal under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court is not applicable to voluntary arbitration cases under the Labor Code. Since respondents' appeal was filed only on March 12, 2015, the same was filed four days late, rendering the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Panel final and executory; hence, not appealable. Perforce, the CA should have dismissed the appeal outright.[47] Moreover, the appeal should have been dismissed at once for respondents' failure to move for the reconsideration of the Panel's Decision. Petitioner explains that respondents motion for reconsideration before the Panel had not been duly filed inasmuch as their motion was not filed within 10 days from their receipt of the Panel's Decision, and the same was not filed directly with the Panel. It is of no moment that the 10th day within which respondents have to file their motion falls on a Sunday. The rule which states that when the last day to file a pleading falls on a Saturday, Sunday or Holiday, the same may be filed on the next business day finds no application in this case considering that the Voluntary Arbitrators that comprised the Panel were private individuals, and there is no law or rule that prohibits them from holding office on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday. Since respondents' motion for reconsideration was not filed in accordance with the mandatory law and rules governing voluntary arbitration proceedings, the CA should have dismissed their appeal straightway.[48] Petitioner disagrees with the CA that respondents did not engage in forum shopping. Contrary to the view of the CA, the Manifestation with Opposition was not filed to oppose the motion for execution she filed, but was in reality a second motion for reconsideration as it sought the reversal and setting aside of the Panel's Decision despite the denial of respondents' earlier motion for reconsideration. Without waiting for the resolution of the said Manifestation with Opposition, respondents filed with the CA their appeal, which also sought for the reversal and setting aside of the very same February 2, 2015 Decision of the Panel. Their contumacious acts, however, did not end there. After filing their appeal with the CA and failing to obtain the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or injunctive writ they prayed for, they filed their Reiterative Motion before the Panel, which in substance was just another second motion for reconsideration. Respondents did not inform the CA about it and even lied in their Compliance[49] when they stated that, " to the best of their knowledge, NO other cases and/or proceedings involving the same parties and issues are pending before the Honorable Court or other courts." All the actions actively and simultaneously pursued by the respondents before the Panel and the CA involved the same and related issues and are all aimed at obtaining the same relief — the reversal of the Decision of the Panel in two fora. Such is clearly a case of forum shopping warranting the outright dismissal of respondents' appeal before the CA.[50] On the merits, petitioner asseverates that the factual findings of the Panel should have been respected by the CA because the same were in accord with the law and evidence on record. She staunchly maintains that there was nothing on record which showed that Manuel committed suicide. Like the Panel, petitioner avers that the statements of the crew members about the actuations of Manuel do not lead to a logical conclusion https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66237 9/37