MCBURNIE V.
GANZON (see 2013 resolution) respondents not only refused to post appeal bond within the
Ynares-Santiago, J. | Sept. 18, 2009 | In division
THIRD DIVISION
FACTS
Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of a Court of
Appeals decision granting respondents Motion to Reduce Appeal
Bond; directing them to post a bond of P10 Million; and ordering
the NLRC to give due course to their appeal and to conduct further
proceedings. Also assailed is a Resolution denying a motion for
reconsideration.
Petitioner Andrew McBurnie, an Australian national, signed a five-
year employment contract as executive vice-president of
respondent EGI Managers through its president Eulalio Ganzon.
McBurnie later featured in an accident and while recuperating from
his injuries in Australia, he was informed by Ganzon that his
services were no longer needed. McBurnie filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal with prayer for the payment of his salary and
benefits for the unexpired term of the contract, damages and
attorneys fees.
The Labor Arbiter declared petitioners dismissal illegal and
ordering respondents to pay salary and benefits for the unexpired
term of the contract, moral and exemplary damages, and attorneys
fees. The NLRC denied respondent’s motion to reduce bond and
ordered respondents to post an additional bond together with the
other requirements under the NLRC Rules of Procedure within a
non-extendible period of 10 days from receipt thereof, otherwise
the appeal shall be dismissed. Respondents moved for
reconsideration but it was denied; respondents were again ordered
to post the additional appeal bond within another non-extendible
period of 10 days from receipt thereof.
Instead of complying, respondents filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with the CA with prayer for issuance of a preliminary
injunction and/or temporary restraining order. A TRO effective for
60 days was issued enjoining the NLRC from enforcing its orders.
After the TRO expired and respondents still failed to post
additional bond, the NLRC dismissed their appeal.
Following the denial of their MFR, respondents filed with the CA a
petition for certiorari with prayer for issuance of TRO and/or writ
of preliminary injunction.
The CA issued a TRO enjoining the NLRC from enforcing
resolution dismissing respondents appeal, and its resolution
denying the MFR. It issued a writ of preliminary injunction.
Petitioner assailed the issuance of the writ before the Supreme
Court. However, it was dismissed for submitting an affidavit of
service which failed to show a competent evidence of affiants
identity.
Meanwhile, the CA rendered the assailed decision granting
respondents motion to reduce appeal bond and directing them to
post an appeal bond of P10 million with the NLRC, which was
likewise ordered to give due course to the appeal and to conduct
further proceedings.
Petitioners MFR was denied hence this petition for review on
certiorari.
POSITION OF PARTIES
Petitioner
Petitioner contends that the CA erred in holding that the NLRC
committed grave abuse of discretion when it outrightly dismissed
the motion to reduce appeal bond without fixing a reasonable
amount therefor, thus depriving the respondents their right to
appeal the Labor Arbiters decision; that the rules on perfection of
appeals must be strictly applied; that the period for posting the
bond cannot be made to depend on the discretion of the party; that
prescribed period but the ground relied upon for the reduction
thereof, to wit: the awards were patent nullity and excessive, was
not meritorious.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
WON the CA committed reversible error in finding that the NLRC
committed grave abuse of discretion when it implemented the
provision of the Labor Code, Art. 223 and Sec. 6, Rule VI of the
NLRC Rules of Procedure. YES.
RULING
The petition is granted. The decision and resolution of the CA are
reversed and set aside. The resolutions of the NLRC are reinstated
and affirmed.
Under Art. 223 of the Labor Code, 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.
Moreover, the filing of the bond is not only mandatory but a
jurisdictional requirement as well, that must be complied with in
order to confer jurisdiction upon the NLRC. The jurisdictional
principle and the mandatory nature of the appeal bond posted
within the 10-day reglementary period are reaffirmed by the New
Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. While the bond may be reduced
upon motion by the employer, this is 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.
Records show that respondents filed their memorandum of appeal
and motion to reduce appeal bond on the 10th or last day of the
reglementary period. Although they posted an initial appeal bond,
the same was grossly inadequate. Further, there is no basis in
respondents contention that the awards of the Labor Arbiter were
null and excessive, and with premeditated intention to render
respondents incapable of posting an appeal bond and deprive them
of the right to appeal.
It also does not escape judicial notice that the cash/surety bond
requirement does not necessitate the employer to physically
surrender the entire amount of the monetary judgment. The usual
procedure is for the employer to obtain the services of a bonding
company, which will then require the employer to pay a percentage
of the award in exchange for a bond securing the full amount.
SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 180147. January 14, 2015.]
SARA LEE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. EMILINDA
D.
MACATLANG, ET AL., 1 respondents.
PEREZ, J
FACTS:
Aris Philippines permanently ceased operations
on 9 October 1995 displacing 5,984 rank-and-file employees. On
26 October 1995, FAPI was incorporated prompting former Aris
employees to file a case for illegal dismissal on the allegations that
FAPI was a continuing business of Aris. Sarah Lee Corporation
(SLC), Sarah Lee Philippines (SLP) and Cesar Cruz were
impleaded as defendants being major stockholders of FAPI and
officers of Aris, respectively.
On 30 October 2004, the Labor Arbiter found
the dismissal of 5,984 Aris employees illegal and awarded them
monetary benefits amounting to P3,453,664,710.86. The judgment
award is composed of separation pay of one month for every year
of service, back wages, moral and exemplary damages and
attorney's fees.
 The Corporations filed a Notice of Appeal with
Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond. They
posted a P4.5 Million bond. The NLRC granted the reduction of
the appeal bond and ordered the Corporations to post an additional
P4.5 Million bond.
The 5,984 former Aris employees, represented
by Emilinda Macatlang (Macatlang petition), filed a petition for
review before the Court of Appeals insisting that the appeal was
not perfected due to failure of the Corporations to post the correct
amount of the bond which is equivalent to the judgment award.
While the case was pending before the
appellate court, the NLRC prematurely issued an order setting
aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter for being procedurally
infirmed.
The Court of Appeals, on 26 March 2007,
ordered the Corporations to post an additional appeal bond of P1
Billion
PETITIONERS' CONTENTION: That by the filing of the motion
to reduce the bond and the positing of the bond of Php 4.5m,
roughly equivalent to the 10% of the original judgment award is
enough to perfect an appeal.
That the Confession of Judgement submitted
by the Petitioners that is only signed by some of the aggrieved
workers instead of the 5,984 illegally dismissed employees and
only an amount of P342,284,800.00 is enough as a substitute for a
valid compromise agreement that will dismiss the cases in dispute.
RESPONDENTS' CONTENTIONS: That the appeal bond made by
Petitioners are not enough to perfect an appeal due to its amount
being below the directed amount given by the Courts
That the Confession of Judgement submitted
by Petitions are not enough to satisfy the claims of Respondents for
being grossly inadequate to satisfy their claims and that they lack
all of the signatures and/or consent of all the 5,984 illegally
dismissed employees running counter to the nature of a
compromise agreement.
ISSUE: 1)WON the appeal bond of roughly Php 4.5M is enough to
perfect an appeal.
2) WON the Confession of Judgement can be accepted as a valid
compromise agreement between the parties.
HELD: 1) NO. The Corporations should have followed the
direction of the Court and filed the additional amount requested by
the Courts for the perfection of the appeal so that the NLRC may
proceed to try the merits of the case for illegal dismissal. The 10%
requirement pertains to the reasonable amount which the NLRC
would accept as the minimum of the bond that should accompany
the motion to reduce bond in order to suspend the period to perfect
an appeal under the NLRC rules. The 10% is based on the
judgment award and should in no case be construed as the
minimum amount of bond to be posted in order to perfect appeal.
Should the NLRC, after considering the merit
of the Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond determines that a greater
amount or the full amount of the bond needs to be posted by the
appellant, then the party shall comply accordingly. The appellant
shall be given a period of 10 days from notice of the NLRC order
within which to perfect the appeal by posting the required appeal
bond.
The Petitioners are then directed to post the
amount of PHP 725M in cash or surety bond within 10 days of the
decision to continue with the determination of the merits of the
alleged illegally dismissed Respondents through the NLRC.
2) NO. The Confession of Judgement cannot be accepted as a
valid compromise agreement.
A confession of judgment is an
acknowledgment that a debt is justly due and cuts off all defenses
and right of appeal. It is used as a shortcut to a judgment in a case
where the defendant concedes liability. It is seen as the written
authority of the debtor and a direction for entry of judgment against
the debtor.
A compromise is a contract whereby the
parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put
an end to one already commenced. It is an agreement between two
or more persons, who, for preventing or putting an end to a lawsuit,
adjust their difficulties by mutual consent in the manner which they
agree on, and which everyone of them prefers to the hope of
gaining, balanced by the danger of losing.A compromise must not
be contrary to law, morals, good customs and public policy; and
must have been freely and intelligently executed by and between
the parties.
Article 273 of the Labor Code of the Philippines authorizes
compromise agreements voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, in
conformity with the basic policy of the State "to promote and
emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining and
negotiations, including voluntary arbitration, mediation and
conciliation, as modes of settling labor or industrial disputes.” A
compromise agreement is valid as long as the consideration is
reasonable and the employee signed the waiver voluntarily, with a
full understanding of what he was entering into.
A review of the compromise agreement shows a gross disparity
between the amount offered by the Corporations compared to the
judgment award. The judgment award is P3,453,664,710.86 or
each employee is slated to receive P577,149.85. On the other hand,
the P342,284,800.00 compromise is to be distributed among 5,984
employees which would translate to only P57,200.00 per
employee. From this amount, P8,580.00 as attorney's fees will be
deducted, leaving each employee with a measly P48,620.00. In
fact, the compromised amount roughly comprises only 10% of the
judgment award.
BORJA ESTATE
vs.
SPOUSES ROTILLO BALLAD and ROSITA BALLAD
G.R. No. 152550 June 8, 2005
TINGA, J.:
FACTS:
The Ballad spouses had been employed as overseers of the Borja
Estate by its owners, the spouses Manuel Borja and Paula Borja,
since 1972. Their appointment as such was later made in writing
per the certification of appointment issued by Paula Borja.
For their compensation, the Ballad spouses received a monthly
salary of P1,000.00 for both of them, or P500.00 each. They were
provided residential quarters plus food and traveling allowances
equivalent to twelve (12) cavans of shelled corn every crop harvest.
In the year 1980, said salary was increased to P2,500.00 for each of
them by Paula Borja when she came from abroad. Until the time
before their dismissal, the Ballad spouses received the same
amount.
The Ballad spouses further alleged that they were appointed as the
attorney-in-fact of the owners to represent the latter in courts
and/or government offices in cases affecting the titling of the
Borjas’ unregistered lands, and to institute and prosecute recovery
of possession thereof, as well as in ejectment cases.
On 10 November 1996, according to the Ballad spouses, when
Francisco Borja, brother of the late Manuel Borja, was appointed
the new administrator, he issued immediately a memorandum to all
the tenants and lessees of the Borja Estate to transact directly with
him and to pay their monthly rentals to him or to his overseers, the
Ballad spouses.
Upon his appointment, Francisco Borja allegedly promised to give
the Ballad spouses their food and traveling allowances aforestated
but not the twelve (12) cavans per harvest which he reduced to two
(2) cavans per harvest. Francisco Borja also stopped giving the
Ballad spouses their allowances. For twenty-seven (27) years that
the Ballad spouses were in the employ of the Borjas they were
purportedly not paid holiday pay, overtime pay, incentive leave
pay, premiums and restday pay, 13th month pay, aside from the
underpayment of their basic salary.
In June 1999, the Ballad spouses alleged that Francisco Borja
unceremoniously dismissed them and caused this dismissal to be
broadcast over the radio, which caused the former to suffer shock
and physical and mental injuries such as social humiliation,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral anxiety, health
deterioration and sleepless nights.
The Court of Appeals observed that petitioners were able to post a
bond only on 17 December 1999 in the amount of Forty Thousand
Pesos (P40,000.00) when the same should have been done during
the same period of appeal. As this was not done and as no
justifiable reason was given for the late filing, the Court of Appeals
ruled that the decision of the Labor Arbiter had become final and
executory.
ISSUE: Whether the appeal is perfected
HELD:
The appeal bond is required under Article 223 of the Labor Code
which 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
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.
ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOME, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and BIENVENIDO
ARICAYOS, respondents.
G.R. No. 130866
September 16, 1998
REGALADO, J.:
FACTS:
Private respondent alleges that he started working as Operations
Manager of petitioner St. Martin Funeral Home on February 6,
1995. However, there was no contract of employment executed
between him and petitioner nor was his name included in the semi-
monthly payroll. On January 22, 1996, he was dismissed from his
employment for allegedly misappropriating P38,000.00. Petitioner
on the other hand claims that private respondent was not its
employee but only the uncle of Amelita Malabed, the owner of
petitioner St.Martin’s Funeral Home and in January 1996, the
mother of Amelita passed away, so the latter took over the
management of the business.
Amelita made some changes in the business operation and private
respondent and his wife were no longer allowed to participate in
the management thereof. As a consequence, the latter filed a
complaint charging that petitioner had illegally terminated his
employment. The labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor of
petitioner declaring that no employer-employee relationship existed
between the parties and therefore his office had no jurisdiction over
the case.
ISSUE: WON the decision of the NLRC are appealable to the
Court of Appeals.
RULING:
The Court is of the considered opinion that ever since appeals from
the NLRC to the SC were eliminated, the legislative intendment
was that the special civil action for certiorari was and still is the
proper vehicle for judicial review of decisions of the NLRC. The
use of the word appeal in relation thereto and in the instances
we have noted could have been a lapsus plumae because appeals by
certiorari and the original action for certiorari are both modes of
judicial review addressed to the appellate courts. The important
distinction between them, however, and with which the Court is
particularly concerned here is that the special civil action for
certiorari is within the concurrent original jurisdiction of this Court
and the Court of Appeals; whereas to indulge in the assumption
that appeals by certiorari to the SC are allowed would not subserve,
but would subvert, the intention of the Congress as expressed in the
sponsorship speech on Senate Bill No. 1495.
Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of B.P No. 129
to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are
interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions for
certiorari under Rule65. Consequently, all such petitions should
henceforth be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict
observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the
appropriate forum for the relief desired.
Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc. vs. CA (2002)
Facts:
Petitioner contended that a sheriff of the NLRC “erroneously and
unlawfully levied” certain properties which it claims as its own. It
filed a 3rdparty claim with the Labor Arbiter and recovery of
property and damageswith the RTC. The RTC dismissed the case.
In the CA, the court dismissed the petition on the ground of
forumshopping and that the proper remedy was appeal in
duecourse, not certiorari or mandamus. Petitioner filed aMFR and
argued that the filing of a complaint for
accionreinvindicatoria with the RTC was proper because it is a
remedy specifically granted to an owner (whose properties were
subjected to a writ of execution to enforce a decision rendered in a
labor dispute in which itwas not a party). The MFR was denied.
Hence, petitionerfiled this appeal.
Issue:
Whether the CA has jurisdiction over the case
Held:YES
A third party whose property has been levied upon by asheriff to
enforce a decision against a judgment debtor isafforded with
several alternative remedies to protect itsinterests. The third party
may avail himself of alternativeremedies cumulatively, and one
will not preclude thethird party from availing himself of the other
alternativeremedies in the event he failed in the remedy firstavailed
of.Thus, a third party may avail himself of the followingalternative
remedies:a) File a third party claim with the sheriff of theLabor
Arbiter, andb) If the third party claim is denied, the third partymay
appeal the denial to the NLRC.Even if a third party claim was
denied, a third partymay still file a proper action with a competent
courtto recover ownership of the property illegally seizedby the
sheriff.The filing of a third party claim with the Labor Arbiterand
the NLRC did not preclude the petitioner from filing asubsequent
action for recovery of property and damageswith the Regional Trial
Court. And, the institution of suchcomplaint will not make
petitioner guilty of forumshopping.