FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between Peter Cosalan, the General Manager of Beneco, and the members of the Beneco Board. Audit memorandums issued by the COA raised concerns about irregularities in cash advances received by Beneco officers and employees, as well as inconsistencies in per diems and allowances received by officials and Board members.

The COA recommended remedial measures and the approval of the NEA before condoning or writing off the cash advances. Respondent Cosalan implemented these measures, leading to the Board adopting resolutions that abolished his housing allowance, reduced his salary and allowances, and excluded him as a signatory to transactions.

As a result, respondent Cosalan was suspended and later terminated as General Manager. Despite the Board's actions, respondent Cosalan continued to work, believing that only authorized NEA officials had the power to suspend or remove him. He requested compensation from Beneco, which was denied.

In response, respondent Cosalan filed a complaint with the NLRC against the Board members, challenging the legality of their resolutions and seeking payment of his salaries and allowances. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent Cosalan, granting his motion for reinstatement and ordering payment of backwages and allowances.

The NLRC modified the award, holding only Beneco liable and dismissing the claims for moral damages and attorney's fees. Beneco filed a Petition for Certiorari, arguing that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by accepting the appeal of the Board members despite it being filed out of time.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the date of delivery of pleadings to a private carrier is considered as the date of filing in court.

2. Whether the ten-day reglementary period to perfect an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional in nature.

3. Whether the indefinite suspension and termination of services imposed by the respondent Board members upon the petitioner was illegal.

4. Whether the respondent Board members deprived the petitioner of procedural due process.

5. Whether the respondent Board members failed to adduce any cause which could reasonably be regarded as lawful cause for the suspension and dismissal of the petitioner.

6. Whether the prior approval of the NEA was required for the suspension and dismissal of the petitioner.

7. Whether the individual Board members are liable for the consequences of their acts.

8. Whether the respondent Board members acted with gross negligence or bad faith in suspending and dismissing the petitioner.

9. Whether Section 31 of the Corporation Code is applicable in holding the respondent Board members liable for damages.

RULING:

1. Delivery of pleadings to a private carrier is not considered as the date of filing in court. The date of actual receipt by the court is deemed the date of filing of the pleading.

2. The ten-day reglementary period to perfect an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional in nature. Failure to file an appeal within the reglementary period renders the decision final and executory.

3. The indefinite suspension and termination of services imposed by the respondent Board members upon the petitioner was found to be illegal.

4. The respondent Board members deprived the petitioner of procedural due process.

5. The respondent Board members failed to adduce any cause which could reasonably be regarded as lawful cause for the suspension and dismissal of the petitioner.

6. The prior approval of the NEA was required for the suspension and dismissal of the petitioner.

7. The individual Board members are not personally liable for the consequences of their acts when they act within the lawful scope of their authority and in good faith.

8. The Court held that the respondent Board members acted with gross negligence or bad faith in suspending and dismissing the petitioner. The record showed strong indications that the Board members illegally suspended and dismissed the petitioner in reprisal for his efforts to remedy financial irregularities and violations of NEA regulations. The Board members failed to disprove the presumption that they acted in reprisal against the petitioner and to suppress knowledge about the financial irregularities. Their actions were found to be both contra legem and beyond the scope of their authority as Board members.

9. The Court ruled that Section 31 of the Corporation Code is applicable in holding the respondent Board members liable for damages. Section 4 of the Corporation Code makes the provisions of the Code applicable to all corporations, including those with special or individual charters, as long as those provisions are not inconsistent with such charters. The Court found no provision in P.D. No. 269, as amended, which would exclude the applicability of Section 31 to members of the boards of directors of electric cooperatives.

PRINCIPLES:

• Delivery to a private letter-forwarding agency is not a recognized mode of filing pleadings.

• The date of actual receipt by the court is deemed the date of filing of a pleading.

• The ten-day reglementary period to perfect an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional in nature.

• Failure to file an appeal within the reglementary period renders the decision final and executory.

• Suspension of an employee beyond the maximum period of preventive suspension is illegal.

• Procedural due process requires that an employee be informed of the charges against them and given an opportunity to present their side.

• Substantive due process requires that there be just or lawful cause for the suspension and dismissal of an employee.

• Prior approval of the NEA is required for the suspension and dismissal of an employee.

• Board members and officers of a corporation are not personally liable for the consequences of their acts when they act within the lawful scope of their authority and in good faith.