G.R. No. 182800
April 20, 2015
Facts
Respondents were regular employees of petitioner. Petitioner temporarily shut down its operations pending the grant of its application before the DENR. Although the DENR-EMB issued a temporary authority on 25 January 2001 for it to be able to continue operating for another six (6) months and to increase its capacity, petitioner failed to secure an extension permit when said temporary authority eventually lapsed.
As a consequence, petitioner served a notice, informing its employees and the Department of Labor and Employment Regional Office No. XII (DOLE) of the temporary suspension of its operations for six months and the temporary lay-off of two-thirds of its employees. After the lapse of said period, petitioner notified the DOLE that it was extending the temporary shutdown of its operations for another six months. Adversely affected by petitioner’s continued failure to resume its operations, respondents filed the complaint for constructive dismissal and monetary claims.
The LA ruled in favor of the respondent. Aggrieved, petitioner filed its memorandum of appeal before the NLRC and moved for the reduction of the appeal bond to P100,000.00, on the ground that its financial losses in the preceding years had rendered it unable to put up one in cash and/or surety equivalent to the monetary award.
On the other hand, respondents moved for the dismissal of the appeal in view of the fact that, despite receipt of the appealed decision on 24 November 2004, petitioner mailed their copy of the memorandum of appeal only on 7 February 2005. Respondents also argued that the appeal bond tendered by petitioner was so grossly disproportionate to monetary award for the same to be considered substantial compliance with the requirements for the perfection of an appeal from a Labor Arbiter’s decision. Further, respondent claimed that petitioner’s memorandum of appeal was filed 65 days after the lapse of reglementary period for appeal. However, the NLRC ruled in favor of petitioner.
On appeal, the CA ruled that petitioner failed to perfect its appeal therefrom considering that the copy of its 3 December 2004 Memorandum of Appeal intended for respondents was served the latter by registered mail only on 7 February 2005. Aside from posting an unusually smaller sum as appeal bond, petitioner was likewise faulted for replenishing the check it issued only on 1 April 2005 or 24 days before the rendition of the assailed NLRC Decision. Applying the principle that the right to appeal is merely a statutory remedy and that the party who seeks to avail of the same must strictly follow the requirements therefor, the CA decreed that the Labor Arbiter’s Decision had already attained finality and, for said reason, had been placed beyond the NLRC’s power of review.
Issue
Whether or not petitioner’s appeal filed with the National Labor Relations Commission was fatally defective?
Held
Yes. The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. A party who seeks to avail of the right must, therefore, comply with the requirements of the rules, failing which the right to appeal is invariably lost.
Article 223 of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides that, “(d)ecisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the [NLRC] by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from the receipt of such decisions, awards or orders.” In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, the same provision mandates that, “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 [NLRC] in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from.” Alongside the requirement that “the appellant shall furnish a copy of the memorandum of appeal to the other party.” These requisites are reiterated in Sections 1, 4 and 6, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure.
In this case, petitioner has filed memorandum of appeal and motion for reduction of appeal bond on the very last day of the reglementary period for appeal. However, petitioner failed to post the full amount of bond pending the NLRC’s action on its motion for reduction of the appeal bond. It must be emphasized that the posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases involving monetary awards from the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Since it is the posting of a cash or surety bond which confers jurisdiction upon the NLRC, the rule is settled that non-compliance is fatal and has the effect of rendering the award final and executory.
Hence, the appeal was defective since it was not perfected because of petitioner’s failure to post the full amount of bond.