SECOND DIVISION
|
RONALDO NICOL, ET AL.,*
Petitioners, - versus - FOOTJOY INDUSTRIAL CORP., ANTONIO TAN,
ROBERT LIM, TERESITA GAMBOA, DANILO DOMINGO and CHUEN FONG HUI, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 159372 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO
MORALES, TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR.,
JJ.
Promulgated: July 27, 2007 |
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Two
hundred seventeen (217) former rank-and-file employees of respondent Footjoy
Industrial Corporation (Footjoy or the company)[1]
bring this petition for review on certiorari, assailing the November 29, 2002
Decision[2]
and the August 4, 2003[3]
Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 71126.
The assailed CA Decision annulled and
set aside the
The
present controversy dates back to
In a Memorandum of
On
In their Complaints, petitioners
contended that the
Petitioners likewise contended that the
proposed consolidation was rejected by the union which saw it as a scheme to
terminate the majority, if not all, of its officers and members who were long
time regular employees of Footjoy Main and Footjoy-Annex A. They thus
averred that the fire that burned down the main plant was a convenient excuse
for the permanent closure of the company.
With respect to the claim for wage
differential, the workers maintained that they were paid only P192 a
day, which was below the P208 per day minimum wage prescribed under the
aforementioned wage order.
By Decision of
Respondents were accordingly ordered
to jointly pay petitioners separation pay (computed on the basis of one month
salary per year of service, a fraction of six months to be considered as one
year) until
Noting respondents’ failure to deny
the allegation of nonpayment of wage increase or to submit proof of due
compliance with Wage Order No. 8, they were further adjudged to pay the
dismissed workers wage differentials of P16 a day effective November 16,
2000 to December 31, 2001, as well as back wages from February 5, 2000 to
October 31, 2001, plus 10 percent of the total monetary award as attorney’s
fees. The total award amounted to Fifty One Million Nine Hundred Fifty Six
Thousand and Three Hundred Fourteen Pesos (P51,956,314).
On P10 million, for which they posted a surety bond,
because of their allegedly dire financial condition.
Petitioners countered by filing a
Manifestation with Motion to Require Appellants (herein respondents) To
Complete Bond, with an alternative prayer for the dismissal of the appeal for
non-filing of the required bond equivalent to the monetary award of P51,956,314.
The NLRC, by Order of
The NLRC thus ordered respondents to
post an additional appeal bond in the amount of P41,956,314
in cash or surety within an inextendible period of 10 days upon receipt of the
Order, failing which the appeal would be dismissed for not having been duly
perfected.
From the foregoing Order, respondents
filed a Motion for Reconsideration. They argued that when the reduction of the
bond can be determined by looking at the veracity of the financial status of
the beleaguered respondent company or even when it is intertwined with the
disposition of the main case, the motion should not in the first place be
denied.
Likewise, respondents manifested to
the NLRC that during the pendency of the appeal, the claims of 153 individual
complainants had already been settled for which they had executed quitclaims in
favor of petitioners; and that 795 other former employees had received their
separation pay/financial assistance, leaving only about 241 workers with claims
yet to be satisfied.
By Order of
On the quitclaims and release papers
of the employees mentioned by Footjoy, the NLRC held that although the
documents appeared to have been notarized, they were not subscribed before the labor
arbiter. The complainants who executed the release documents should have, the
NLRC declared, been presented before it for verification of the signatures and
the legitimacy of the settlement.
Finally, the NLRC noted that
respondents failed to address the allegation that they were operating
several run-away factories in Guiguinto and Pulilan, Bulacan,[13]
hiring thousands of workers on a contractual basis, and using machineries
pulled out from the burned-down factory.
As Footjoy failed to post the
additional P41 million plus bond within the period allowed by its
previous Order, the NLRC dismissed respondents’ appeal for non-perfection
thereof.
Respondents assailed the NLRC
dismissal of their appeal before the CA via certiorari[14]
with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ
of preliminary injunction.
By Resolution of
Subsequently, by the assailed
Decision, the CA gave due course to respondents’ petition, annulling and setting
aside the challenged Resolution and Order of the NLRC.
In the assailed Decision, the CA held
that the NLRC could have determined the truth or falsity and merit of
respondents’ grounds for the reduction of its appeal bond through the reception
of evidence; and
that the NLRC should not have just insisted on requiring respondents to put up a
bond in the equivalent amount of the award without any regard to the reasons
and arguments of respondents and without determining for itself what amount
would be reasonable under the circumstances.
Citing several cases[16]
in which the Supreme Court relaxed the requirement of a supersedeas bond to
bring about a resolution of controversies on the merits, the appellate court
held that respondents had substantially complied with the rule because both their
Appeal and the Motion to Reduce Bond were filed seasonably, and the amount of P10
million, which was not minimal, was tendered with due explanation and
justification therefor.
The CA thus directed the NLRC “to consider
[respondents’] motion to reduce bond after receiving evidence thereon and upon
the putting up of the required reasonable supersedeas bond within the period
provided, to give due course to the appeal and to determine the merits of the
case thereof.”[17]
Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the
above Decision, which motion was denied by the CA by Resolution of
Hence, this present petition for
review on certiorari.
In issue is whether a motion to
reduce the appeal bond can be given due course even if it is not accompanied by
a bond in a “reasonable amount”; and whether this Court’s ruling in Mers Shoes Manufacturing v. NLRC[18]
is applicable to the present case.
The petition fails.
Article 223 of the Labor Code, as
amended, clearly provides:
ART. 223. Appeal. — Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. Such appeal may be entertained only on any of the following grounds:
(a) If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter;
(b) If the decision, order or award was secured through fraud or coercion, including graft and corruption;
(c) If made purely on questions of law; and
(d) If serious errors in the finding of facts are raised which would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.
In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Similarly, Sections 4(a) and 6 of
Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, as amended, provide:
SECTION
4. REQUISITES FOR PERFECTION OF APPEAL.
— (a) The Appeal shall be filed
within the reglementary period as provided in Section 1 of this Rule; shall be
verified by appellant himself in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules
of Court, with proof of payment of the required appeal fee and the posting of a
cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; shall be accompanied
by a memorandum of appeal in three (3) legibly typewritten copies which
shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof; the
relief prayed for; and a statement of the date when the appellant received the
appealed decision, resolution or order and a certificate of non-forum shopping
with proof of service on the other party of such appeal. A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites
aforestated shall not stop the running of the period of perfecting an appeal.
SECTION 6. BOND. — In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Regional Director involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. The appeal bond shall either be in cash or surety in an amount equivalent to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and attorney’s fees.
x x x x
No motion to reduce bond shall be
entertained except on meritorious grounds and upon the posting of a bond in a
reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.
The filing of the motion to reduce bond without compliance with the requisites in the preceding paragraph shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The necessary import of the foregoing
provisions is that in the case of an employer appealing the labor arbiter’s
decision to the NLRC, the posting of a cash or surety
bond to perfect an appeal of a monetary judgment is not only mandatory but also
jurisdictional, non-compliance with which has the effect of rendering the
judgment final and executory.[19] Ong v. Court
of Appeals[20]
stressed:
The
intention of the lawmakers to make the bond an indispensable requisite for the
perfection of an appeal by the employer is underscored by the provision that an
appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or
surety bond. The word “only” makes it perfectly clear that
the lawmakers intended the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer to
be the exclusive means by which an
employer’s appeal may be perfected.[21]
Be that as it
may, Section 6 of Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, as
amended, allows the reduction of the appeal bond. This practice-evolved rule[22]
has been made explicit by Resolution 01-02, series of 2002,[23]
subject to the conditions that (1) the motion to reduce the bond shall be based
on meritorious grounds; and (2) a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary
award is posted by the appellant, otherwise the filing of the motion to reduce
bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.
There is no
dispute that respondents filed a Notice of Appeal and complied with the other
requirements for perfecting an appeal, save for the posting of the full
amount of the bond, on December 20, 2001 or nine days after receipt of the
labor arbiter’s decision. And
admittedly, respondents’ Motion to Reduce Bond was accompanied by an actual
tender of a P10 million surety bond executed by the Security Pacific Assurance
Corporation.[24]
Was the P10
million surety bond posted by the employer Footjoy a “reasonable amount” in
relation to the monetary award of about P51 million so as to perfect an
appeal before the NLRC? Revolving around
this question is petitioners’ contention that P10 million, which is
roughly 20% or one-fifth of the total award, is a pittance;[25]
and respondents’ submission that it was sizable and sufficient given their dire
economic condition.
This
Court rules at the outset that the CA committed no error in ruling that the
NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied the motion to reduce
the bond peremptorily without considering evidence to justify the reduction.
This
Court notes in particular the NLRC’s precipitate haste in dismissing the
quitclaims and release documents presented by respondents to support the
reduction of the monetary award due (and consequently, the amount of the appeal
bond) when it could easily have required the verification of the signatures and
of the legitimacy of the settlement.
The
purpose of the appeal bond, being to assure the payment of workers’ claims in
the event of their victory on appeal,[26]
the verification of the legitimacy of the alleged settlements was clearly
material in determining the merit of reducing the bond to an amount sufficient
to cover the award still owing or, at the very least, to a reasonable level.
Upon
the other hand, while respondents’ motion to reduce the bond hinged on the
purportedly unhealthy state of their finances due to business reverses, the NLRC
was not precluded from making a preliminary determination of their financial
capability to post the required bond, without necessarily passing upon the
merits. Since the intention is merely to give the NLRC
an idea of the justification for the reduced bond, the evidence for the purpose
would necessarily be less than the evidence required for a ruling on the
merits.
Indeed,
it only bears stressing that the NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence
on appeal as technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases.[27] On the contrary, the Labor Code explicitly
mandates it to “use every and all reasonable means to
ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to
technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.”[28]
Moreover,
implicit in Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRC New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC
is its authority to determine whether the motion to reduce bond is based on
meritorious grounds and whether the amount offered or tendered is reasonable in
relation to the award.
Admittedly,
reduction of the bond is not a matter of right on the part of the movant. Its grant lies within the sound discretion of
the NLRC upon showing of meritorious grounds[29]
and the reasonableness of the bond tendered under the circumstances.
A
review of jurisprudence[30]
which could shed light on the bond requirement for perfecting an appeal before
the NLRC is in order.
The
case of Star Angel Handicraft v. NLRC,[31] which respondents cited in support of
their Motion to Reduce Bond, arose from the dismissal by the NLRC of an
employer’s appeal for failure to put up a bond, the amount of which was
contested because the monetary award of the labor arbiter was based allegedly
on an erroneous daily-minimum wage.
In dismissing the
appeal, the NLRC held that the appeal bond must first be posted before the Commission could act on the motion to
reduce it.
Reversing the NLRC, this Court ruled:
Inasmuch as the NLRC in practice allowed the reduction of the appeal bond upon motion of appellant and on meritorious grounds, it follows that a motion to that effect may be filed within the reglementary period for appealing. Such motion may be filed in lieu of a bond which amount is being contested. In the meantime, the appeal is not deemed perfected and the Labor Arbiter retains jurisdiction over the case until the NLRC has acted on the motion and appellant had filed the bond as fixed by the NLRC.”[32] (Underscoring supplied)
The
distinction made in Star Angel
between the filing of an appeal within the reglementary period and its
perfection is now invoked by respondents to excuse the posting of the required
bond within the period allowed by the NLRC.
Apropos are this Court’s
following observations in Computer
Innovations Center v. NLRC:[33]
x x x [T]he reference in Star Angel to the distinction between the period to file the appeal and to perfect the appeal has been pointedly made only once by this Court in Gensoli v. NLRC[34] thus, it has not acquired the sheen of venerability reserved for repeatedly-cited cases. The distinction, if any, is not particularly evident or material in the Labor Code; hence, the reluctance of the Court to adopt such doctrine. Moreover, the present provision in the NLRC Rules of Procedure, that “the filing of a motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect appeal” flatly contradicts the notion expressed in Star Angel that there is a distinction between the filing an appeal and perfecting an appeal.
Ultimately, the disposition of Star Angel was premised on the ruling that a motion for reduction of the appeal bond necessarily stays the period for perfecting the appeal, and that the employer cannot be expected to perfect the appeal by posting the proper bond until such time the said motion for reduction is resolved. The unduly stretched-out distinction between the period to file an appeal and to perfect an appeal was not material to the resolution of Star Angel, and this could be properly considered as obiter dictum. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The dismissal of an appeal for
failure to post an appeal bond was likewise assailed in Rural Bank of Coron (
It bears emphasis that all that is required to perfect the appeal is the posting of a bond to ensure that the award is eventually paid should the appeal be dismissed. Petitioners should thus have posted a bond, even if it were only partial, but they did not. No relaxation of the Rule may thus be considered. (Emphasis supplied)
In the recent case of Postigo v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society,
Inc. (PTSI),[36] this
Court sustained the ruling of the CA that PTSI substantially complied with the required posting of a cash or surety bond
not only because the filing of its motion for reduction of the bond was
justified, but also because it immediately submitted a bond which it attached
to its motion for reconsideration of the NLRC resolution dismissing its
appeal.
PTSI had initially deferred the
posting of the surety bond in view of the alleged erroneous computation of the
monetary award.
At
issue in Rosewood Processing, Inc. v.
NLRC[37] was a
motion to reduce the required bond amounting to P789,154.39.
Ruling that the posting of a partial
surety bond of P50,000 during the pendency before
the NLRC of the employer’s motion to
reduce appeal bond was substantial compliance.
This Court stressed that the letter perfect rules must yield to the
broader interest of substantial justice.
This ruling reiterated earlier pronouncements
in Blancaflor v. NLRC,[38] Rada v. NLRC,[39]
and YBL (Your Bus Line) v. NLRC,[40]
in which the NLRC was cautioned to give Article 223 of the Labor Code,
particularly the provisions on requiring a bond on appeals involving monetary
awards, a liberal interpretation in line with the desired objective of
resolving controversies on the merits.
The case of Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. NLRC,[41] meanwhile, arose
from the denial by the
NLRC of a motion to reduce the appeal bond in the amount which the therein
petitioner was ordered to jointly and severally pay the complainant therein. Ruling out grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the NLRC, this Court held that the therein petitioner’s contentions
that it “cannot afford to post the bond of P397,990.19 because it does
not have that sum earned from the business with Guani Marketing, Inc.” and that
“to use the funds from sources other than that earned from Guani Marketing,
Inc. would not be a sound business judgment,” constituted an admission that it
had funds to post the required bond, although not from its business with Guani
Marketing, Inc. [42]
In lieu of the required cash or surety bond,
the petitioner in Ong v. Court of Appeals[43]
filed a motion to reduce bond. Alleging
that the posting of the full amount of the award of P1,427,802,04 was
“unjustified and prohibitive,” petitioner prayed that the same be reduced to a
“reasonable level.”
Sustaining
the CA, this Court ruled that the NLRC did not act with grave abuse of
discretion when it denied petitioner’s motion because the same failed to either
elucidate why the amount of the bond was “unjustified and prohibitive” or to
indicate what would be a “reasonable level.”
In addition, we observed that “petitioner did not post a full or partial appeal bond within the
prescribed period, thus, no appeal was perfected from the decision of the Labor
Arbiter.”[44]
(Emphasis supplied)
In
Calabash Garments, Inc. v. NLRC,[45]
it was held that “a substantial monetary award, even if it runs into millions,
does not necessarily give the employer-appellant a ‘meritorious case’ and does
not automatically warrant a reduction of the appeal bond.”
Similarly,
we ruled in Biogenerics Marketing and
Research Corporation v. NLRC[46]
that since the filing of a bond for the perfection of an appeal is mandatory,
it was “not an excuse that the over P2 million award is too much for a
small business enterprise, like the petitioner company, to shoulder for the law
does not require its outright payment, but only the payment of a moderate and
reasonable sum for the premium for the bond.”
Ciudad Fernandina Food Corporation (CFFC) Employees
Union-Associated Labor Unions v. Court of Appeals[47]
presented a challenge to a CA Decision setting aside the NLRC’s
dismissal of CCFC’s appeal, which was filed alongside its Motion for Reduction
of Supersedeas Bond.
Distinguishing
CCFC’S case with other cases in which the Court relaxed the requirement on the
posting of the supersedeas bond, the Court noted that CCFC absolutely failed to
comply with the compulsory and explicit requirement of posting an appeal
bond. Having merely alleged the
satisfaction of the workers’ claims, closure of the business and substantial
justice, without more, CCFC failed to convince the Court that meritorious
grounds existed for the relaxation of the rule regarding posting of an appeal
bond.[48]
ALL TOLD, the
bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards has been and may be
relaxed in meritorious cases.[49] These cases include instances in which (1)
there was substantial compliance with the Rules, (2) surrounding facts and
circumstances constitute meritorious grounds to reduce the bond, (3) a liberal
interpretation of the requirement of an appeal bond would serve the desired
objective of resolving controversies on the merits, or (4) the appellants, at
the very least, exhibited their willingness and/or good faith by posting a
partial bond during the reglementary period.
Conversely,
the reduction of the bond is not warranted when no meritorious ground is shown
to justify the same; the appellant absolutely failed to comply with the
requirement of posting a bond, even if partial; or when circumstances show the
employer’s unwillingness to ensure the satisfaction of its workers’ valid
claims.
By the above
guidelines must NLRC exercise its discretion in considering herein petitioners’
motion for reduction of its bond. A remand of the case to it for determination
of the merits of the motion is thus in order.
The other question presented in the
present petition is the applicability of Mers
Shoes Manufacturing v. NLRC.[50] To recall, the aggrieved employer in that
case simultaneously filed before the NLRC an appeal and a motion to reduce the
bond (which at the equivalent amount of the monetary award would have totaled P806,252.40)
to P200,000.
The Commission partially granted the
motion by an Order directing the therein petitioners to post a cash or surety
bond of P403,126.20, or half the amount of the required bond, within ten
days from receipt of its Order.
Instead, however, of posting the
reduced bond, the employer filed a motion for reconsideration from the above Order,
which the NLRC treated as a motion for extension of time to perfect an appeal,
a prohibited pleading under the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. Consequently, ruling that the 10-day
reglementary period within which to post the appeal bond had lapsed, the NLRC
dismissed the employer’s appeal.
Upholding the NLRC’s dismissal of the
employer’s appeal in Mers Shoes, this
Court ruled that perfection of an appeal within the period and in the manner
prescribed by Article 223 of the Labor Code is jurisdictional, non-compliance
with which is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and
executory.
The factual milieus of the instant
case and that of Mers Shoes are
significantly different in a number of points. For one, while both cases
pertained to motions for reduction of the appeal bond, the motion in Mers Shoes was partially granted by the
NLRC as it allowed a 50% reduction of the required bond; whereas herein
petitioners’ motion was totally denied.
Furthermore, there was no showing in Mers Shoes that the employer had posted
an appeal bond in any amount, while herein petitioners’ motion to reduce the
bond was accompanied by a P10 million surety bond.
More importantly, no grave abuse of
discretion was found to have attended the dismissal of the appeal in Mers Shoes for the employer’s failure to
post the reduced amount of the bond. In
sharp contrast, the NLRC in the present case gravely abused its discretion when
it dismissed Footjoy’s appeal, without even receiving evidence from which it
could have determined the merit or lack of it of the motion to reduce the
appeal bond.
The inapplicability of Mers Shoes to the instant case having
been ruled, respondents’ invocation of it for a ruling herein that petitioners’
motion for reconsideration should also be treated as a motion for extension of
time to perfect an appeal deserves short shrift.
It suffices to emphasize that in
labor cases, rules of procedure should not be applied in a very rigid and
technical sense especially when their strict application would result in the
frustration rather than promotion of substantial justice.[51] Moreover, Section 14 of Rule VII of the New
Rules of Procedure of the NLRC specifically provides that the aggrieved party
may file a motion for reconsideration within ten (10) calendar days from
receipt of any order, resolution, or
decision of the NLRC.
WHEREFORE, the
Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
Costs against
petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Due to their sheer number, the names of the complainants in the two cases, NLRC Case Nos. RAB-III-03-2555-01 and RAB-III-11-3563-01, were merely annexed to the Complaints before the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch. The names of the 216 other petitioners herein are likewise omitted for the sake of brevity.
[1] Footjoy was a manufacturer of slippers, shoes, sandals and luggage.
[2] Rollo, pp. 43-59. Penned by Justice Jose L. Sabio and concurred in by Justices Romeo A. Brawner (then Chairperson of the former Fourteenth Division) and Romeo L. Guariña III.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] The Position Paper of the
complainants in NLRC Case No. RAB-III-03-2555-01 was signed by 479
former employees while that for NLRC Case No. RAB-III-11-3563-01 carried the
signatures of 38 others.
[8] Along with Footjoy, petitioners impleaded individual respondents Antonio Tan, Robert Lim, Danilo Domingo, Teresita Gamboa and Chuen Fong Hui in their respective capacities as owner, general manager of Footjoy - Annex “C,” general manager of Footjoy - Annexes “A” and “B,” personnel officer, and plant manager.
[9] Referred to as Footjoy Annexes “A” to “C.”
[10] Executive Labor Arbiter Eduardo J. Carpio.
[11] Rollo, pp. 233-236.
[12]
[13] The
alleged run-away shops, which were identified by petitioners as Expo Rubber
Industrial Corporation and Discovery Luggage Corporation, Pulilan Footwear and
Luggage Manufacturing Corporation, Fair Trade International and Cathay Luggage
Corporation, were impleaded as additional respondents in their Amended
Complaint dated
[14] Rollo, pp.
276-311. The petition for certiorari was dated
[15]
[16] Navarro v. NLRC, 383
Phil. 765 (2000); Nueva Ecija I Electric
Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRC, 380 Phil. 44 (2000); Rosewood Processing, Inc. v. NLRC, 352 Phil. 1013 (1998); Fernandez v. NLRC, G.R. No. 105892,
[17] Rollo, p. 58; CA Decision, p. 16 (upper case in the original).
[18] 350 Phil. 294 (1998).
[19] Bunagan v. Sentinel Watchman &
Protective Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 144376, September 13, 2006, 501 SCRA 650, 657; Stolt-Nielsen Marine Services, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 147623,
December 13, 2005, 477 SCRA 516, 530; Filipinas
Systems, Inc. v. NLRC, 463 Phil. 813, 818-819 (2003).
[20] G.R. No. 152494,
[21] Supra at 677.
[22] In Star Angel Handicraft v. NLRC (G.R. No.
108914, September 20, 1994, 236 SCRA 580, 584), the Court had observed that
neither the Labor Code nor its implementing rules specifically provide for a
situation where the appellant moves for a reduction of the appeal bond, but
observed that “in practice the NLRC allows the reduction of the appeal bond
upon motion of appellant and on meritorious grounds x x x.” See also Globe General Services and Security Agency
v. NLRC (First Division), G.R. No. 106477,
[23] The amendment has been carried over to Rule VI, Section 6 of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC.
[24] Rollo, pp. 237-263.
[25]
[26] Oriental Mindoro Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRC, 316 Phil. 959, 968 (1995); Viron Garments Mftg., Co., Inc., et al. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 97357, March 18, 1992, 207 SCRA 339, 342.
[27] Philippine
Industrial Security Agency Corp. v. Dapiton, 377 Phil. 951, 964 (1999); Favila, et al. v. NLRC, 367 Phil. 584, 595
(1999); Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa Sony (NAMASO) v. NLRC, 338 Phil. 716, 725-726 (1997).
[28]
Revised Rules of Procedure of the Nlrc,
Rule VII, Section 10.
[29] Ong v. Court of Appeals, supra note 20
at 675.
[30] The cases include those cited in petitioners’ and respondents’ respective Memoranda.
[31] G.R. No.
108914,
[32] Supra at 584.
[33] G.R. No. 152410, June 29, 2005, 462 SCRA 183, 192-193 cited in Rural Bank of Coron (Palawan), Inc. v. Cortes, G.R. No. 164888, December 6, 2006.
[34] Gensoli & Co. v.
NLRC, 352 Phil. 232 (1998), involved a monetary award in the total amount
of P434,752.50, of which only P181,969.10
was posted by petitioners therein as supersedeas bond.
After the NLRC dismissed the appeal for failure to
post the required amount of the bond, petitioners moved for reconsideration
while manifesting their willingness to put up an additional cash bond to fully
cover the monetary award. That motion, however, was denied by the NLRC.
In granting petitioners’ certiorari petition, this
Court allowed the posting of the requisite bond so as not to foreclose the
remedy of appeal. In so ruling, we took
into account the fact that petitioners had repeatedly offered to their farm
workers separation pay amounting to P252,738.40 and in good faith, and
thereafter posted the supersedeas bond in an amount sufficient to cover the
excess amount of P181,969.10.
[35] Supra note
33.
[36] G.R. No.
155146,
[37] 352 Phil. 1013, 1031 (1998).
[38] G.R. No. 101013,
[39] G.R. No. 96078,
[40] G.R. No. 93381,
[41] 341 Phil.
393 (1997).
[42]
[43] Supra note 20.
[44] Supra at 678.
[45] 329 Phil. 226, 235 (1996).
[46] 372 Phil. 653, 661 (1999).
[47] G.R. No. 166594,
[48] Supra at 819-821.
[49] See Rural Bank of Coron (
[50] 350 Phil. 294 (1998).
[51] Tres Reyes v. Maxim’s Tea House, 446
Phil. 388, 400 (2003); Samahan ng
Manggagawa sa Moldex Products, Inc. v. NLRC, 381 Phil. 254, 264 (2000); Lopez, Jr. v. NLRC, 315 Phil. 717,
723-724 (1995).