Facts:
Turks Shawarma Company, and its owner, Gem Zeñarosa, hired Feliciano Z. Pajaron and Larry A. Carbonilla as service and head crew, respectively. Pajaron and Carbonilla ended up filing complaints against petitioners for illegal dismissal and non-payment of various labor standard benefits. Pajaron refused to sign a document he disagreed with, which led to his dismissal, whereas Carbonilla’s dismissal was alleged to have occurred after an altercation with a supervisor. Petitioners, however, contended that Pajaron habitually absented himself without notice and that Carbonilla was repeatedly reprimanded for misbehavior and disobedience. They claimed that both complainants abandoned their work.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Pajaron and Carbonilla, prompting the petitioners to file an appeal with the NLRC. They posted a partial cash bond of P15,000.00 claiming financial inability to post the full amount. The NLRC dismissed the appeal for non-perfection due to the inadequate amount of bond, and subsequent motions did not persuade the NLRC to reconsider. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the CA affirmed the NLRC’s decision. The petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
1. Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the NLRC’s dismissal of the petitioners’ appeal for failure to post the required appeal bond?
2. Were there substantial compliance and meritorious circumstances that would warrant a reduction of the appeal bond and allow an appeal to be given due course?
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and denied the petition. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners failed to comply with the requirements of posting an appeal bond, which is both mandatory and jurisdictional. The partial bond of P15,000.00 was not reasonable considering the total monetary award. No meritorious grounds were provided for reducing the appeal bond nor was financial hardship substantiated. Furthermore, the petitioners’ failure to submit evidence of abandoned work by Pajaron and Carbonilla led the Court to uphold the finding of illegal dismissal.
Doctrine:
The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of posting an appeal bond when appealing decisions of the Labor Arbiter. Article 223 of the Labor Code explicitly states this requirement, and the 2005 NLRC Revised Rules of Procedure further clarify the rules regarding motions for reduction of the appeal bond based on meritorious grounds and posting a reasonable amount thereof.
Class Notes:
– Right to appeal is a statutory privilege, conditional upon compliance with the rules.
– The posting of an appeal bond is mandatory and jurisdictional in labor cases.
– Rules of procedure are designed not for the convenience of the litigants but for the orderly administration of justice.
– Failure to post a reasonable appeal bond within the reglementary period results in the finality of the decision.
– Financial hardship must be substantiated, and a reasonable portion of the bond must be posted, to warrant reduction.
– In labor cases, the burden of proof rests on the employer to justify the dismissal of an employee.
– Labor adjudicatory bodies are empowered to reduce appeal bonds on meritorious grounds.
Historical Background:
The strict enforcement of appeal bonds in labor cases in the Philippines is based on the principle of ensuring workers’ rights to receive due compensation. Over time, the Philippine Supreme Court has sometimes relaxed the requirements for posting a full appeal bond under specific and justifiable circumstances. However, as indicated by this case, strict compliance is generally required to provide employees with the assurance of obtaining awarded claims, and to prevent employers from using the appeal process to delay or evade the fulfillment of their obligations.
Leave a Reply