G.R. No. 206612
August 17, 2015
Facts
Games worked as foreman for petitioner. Subsequently, petitioner charged Games of qualified theft before the trial court for allegedly stealing its vehicle lubricants. Two years thereafter, Games filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of benefits, and damages against petitioner.
The LA ruled against petitioner. Petitioner no longer filed a motion for reconsideration. As a result, the LA’s ruling became final and executory. The LA issued a writ of execution, which petitioner sought to quash. The LA denied the claims of petitioner. Aggrieved, the latter appealed before the NLRC.
The NLRC dismissed the case on the basis of the rule that no appeal may be taken from an order of execution of a final judgment. Moreover, the appeal of petitioner was denied due course because it had failed to show proof of its security deposit for the appeal bond under Section 6, Rule VI of the 2005 NLRC Rules of Procedure. According to the NLRC, the bonding company’s mere declaration in the Certification of Security Deposit that the bond was fully secured was not tantamount to a faithful compliance with the rule, because there must first be an accompanying assignment of the employer’s bank deposit. CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC. Hence, this petition.
Issues
- Whether or not the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in requiring petitioner to post an appeal bond, because this requirement does not cover an appeal from a decision of the LA denying a motion to quash a writ of execution.
- Whether or not the NLRC erred in requiring petitioner to accompany the appeal bond with proof of a security deposit or collateral securing the bond.
- Whether or not the petitioners can appeal on a final judgment.
Held
First Issue
No. Article 223 of the Labor Code and Section 6, Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure provides that 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 either be in the form of cash deposit or surety bond equivalent in amount to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and attorney’s fees.
In other words, the above rules generally state that in case the ruling of the LA involves a monetary award, an employer’s appeal may be perfected only upon the posting of a bond. The underlying purpose of the appeal bond is to ensure that the employee has properties on which he or she can execute upon in the event of a final, providential award.
In this case, the decision of the Labor Arbiter involves a monetary award. Hence, it can only be appealed by posting a bond. The point of the petitioner that an appeal bond is no longer necessary for an appeal from the decision of the LA denying a motion to quash a writ of execution is not only incorrect, but also dangerous. If we are to construe otherwise, then an aggrieved party may simply seek the quashal of a writ of execution, instead of going through the normal modes of appeal, to altogether avoid paying for an appeal bond. This ruse will then circumvent the requirement of both labor rules and jurisprudence to post an appeal bond before contesting the LA’s grant of monetary award.
Second Issue
No. Section 6, Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure demands that an appeal bond must be accompanied by a “proof of security deposit or collateral securing the bond.”
Third Issue
No. An appeal is not a matter of right, but is a mere statutory privilege. It may be availed of only in the manner provided by law and the rules. 18 Thus, a party who seeks to elevate an action must comply with the requirements of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure as regards the period, grounds, venue, fees, bonds, and other requisites for a proper appeal before the NLRC; and in Section 6, Rule VI, the aforesaid rules prohibit appeals from final and executory decisions of the Labor Arbiter. Jurisprudence also dictates that a final and executory decision of the LA can no longer be reversed or modified.
In this case, petitioner elevated to the NLRC an already final and executory decision of the LA. At the time that the petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration, the judgment already become final and executory.
Hence, the petitioners can no longer appeal a final judgment.