NEWSPAPER MAGAZINE & DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET. AL., PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND MARILOU TEVAR, RESPONDENTS.

Newspaper Magazine and Dealers Association of the Philippines versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed by the Newspaper, Magazine and Comics Dealers Association of the Philippines and its president, Cresencio Tabianan, against the National Labor Relations Commission and Marilou Tevar. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to annul the resolutions of the Commission that dismissed their appeal from a labor arbiter's decision finding them liable for constructive dismissal. The case matters because it fixes the rule that an employer's appeal in a labor case is perfected only when the cash or surety bond is posted within the ten-day reglementary period, and that this requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional.

Procedural History

Marilou Tevar filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of salaries and wages, service incentive leave, thirteenth month pay, separation pay and other benefits before the National Capital Region Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission. The case was assigned to Labor Arbiter Veneranda Guerrero. After settlement efforts failed, the parties submitted their position papers. On May 15, 2003, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding the association liable for illegal constructive dismissal and ordering the payment of separation pay, backwages, unpaid salaries and pro-rata thirteenth month pay.

The petitioners received a copy of the decision on July 3, 2003 and filed their notice and memorandum of appeal on July 14, 2003. The private respondent pointed out that no surety or cash bond had been attached, and the bond was posted only on July 29, 2003. In its resolution dated October 8, 2003, the Commission dismissed the appeal for failure to perfect it within the reglementary period, and in its resolution dated December 16, 2003 it denied the motion for reconsideration. The petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Marilou Tevar alleged that she had been a regular employee of the association from 1983 to 2002, serving as its secretary and responsible for its overall operations and records. After Cresencio Tabianan was elected president, she claimed she was pressured by him and the board to resign, and that a new employee was hired to replace her. Unable to bear the pressure, she filed a sick leave on September 23, 2002, but the president, while approving the leave, did not authorize payment of her salary since September 15, 2002. She treated these acts as constructive dismissal.

The petitioners countered that the association is a non-stock organization and that the private respondent was its only employee since 1983. They alleged that in 2002 she joined other officers who resigned to form another organization, and that in September 2002 the association filed a complaint for estafa against her and the resigned officers. They claimed she applied for an indefinite leave of absence and that, although the leave was granted, her request for payment of leave benefits was denied. She was also directed to answer charges against her, but instead filed the complaint. The petitioners insisted she was never dismissed.

The Labor Arbiter found that the private respondent was constructively dismissed and ordered the payment of 200,000 pesos as separation pay, 80,000 pesos as backwages, 4,999 pesos and 99 centavos as unpaid salaries, and 7,858 pesos and 33 centavos as pro-rata thirteenth month pay. The petitioners appealed, but the appeal bond was posted late, prompting the Commission to dismiss the appeal.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the petitioners failed to perfect it within the reglementary period required by law.
• Whether or not the private respondent was constructively dismissed.
• Whether or not the private respondent abandoned her work.

Applicable Provisions

Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides:

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. 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.

This provision makes the posting of the bond an indispensable requirement for the perfection of an employer's appeal involving a monetary award.

Section 6 of Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission provides:

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 bond, which shall be in the form or cash deposit or surety bond equivalent in amount to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and attorney's fees.

This rule implements Article 223 and fixes the form and amount of the bond required.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Commission did not gravely abuse its discretion; it merely applied the law. Grave abuse of discretion means the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal hostility amounting to an evasion of positive duty, or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined. The Court noted that the petitioners received the decision on July 3, 2003, so they had until July 13, 2003 to perfect their appeal. Although the appeal was filed on July 14, 2003, which was timely because July 13 fell on a Sunday, the appeal was not perfected because the surety bond was posted only on July 28, 2003. The Court quoted its earlier ruling:

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 considered completed.

The Court stressed that the bond is a condition sine qua non, meaning an indispensable prerequisite, to the perfection of an appeal from a monetary award, and that failure to comply renders the labor arbiter's decision final and executory. It also held that the case did not fall under any of the recognized exceptions where the bond requirement may be relaxed, and that the petitioners' inconsistent explanations, financial difficulties in one motion and pressure of professional work in another, showed willful neglect.

On the second issue, the Court agreed with the Labor Arbiter that the private respondent was constructively dismissed. The pressure from the petitioners to resign and the hiring of a new employee to perform her duties stood unrebutted. Constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer has become so unbearable to the employee, leaving him with no option but to forego his continued employment.

On the third issue, the Court held that there was no abandonment. Abandonment requires two elements: the employee must have failed to report for work without a valid or justifiable reason, and there must be a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by overt acts. The private respondent applied for an indefinite sick leave, which was approved, and the filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal negates any intention to abandon her work.

Doctrine

An appeal from a decision, award or order of the Labor Arbiter involving a monetary award is perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award within the ten-day reglementary period. The posting of the bond is mandatory and jurisdictional, and failure to comply renders the decision final and executory. The right to appeal is not a natural right or part of due process but a statutory privilege that must be exercised in the manner and within the period prescribed by law. Constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer has become so unbearable to the employee that he is left with no option but to forego his continued employment. Abandonment requires the concurrence of two elements: failure to report for work without a valid or justifiable reason, and a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by overt acts.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission were affirmed, leaving the labor arbiter's decision final and executory.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the posting of the cash or surety bond within the ten-day reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional for the perfection of an employer's appeal involving a monetary award. Examiners like to use this case to test the requisites for perfecting an appeal from the Labor Arbiter to the National Labor Relations Commission, and to distinguish constructive dismissal from abandonment of work.