Summary of Cases on Appeals

1. G.R. No. 182800

MANILA MINING CORPORATION vs LOWITO AMOR, ET. AL.
April 20, 2015
PEREZ, J
SC FIRST DIVISION

 Time and again, it has been held that 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.
 Insofar as appeals from decisions of the Labor Arbiter are concerned, 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," the foregoing requisites for the perfection of an appeal are
reiterated under Sections 1, 4 and 6, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure in force at
the time petitioner appealed the Labor Arbiter’s 25 October 2004 Decision, viz.:
o SECTION 1. PERIODS OF APPEAL. - Decisions, resolutions or orders of the Labor
Arbiter shall be final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any
or both parties within ten (10)calendar days from receipt of such decisions,
resolutions or orders of the Labor Arbiter x x x x. If the 10th x x x x day x x x x
falls on a Saturday, Sunday or a holiday, the last day to perfect the appeal shall
be the next working day.
o SECTION 4. REQUISITES FOR PERFECTION OF APPEAL. - (a) The Appeal shall be
filed within the reglementary period as provided in Section 1 of this Rule; shall
be verified by appellant himself in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules
of Court, with proof of payment of the required appeal fee and the posting of a
cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; shall be accompanied
by memorandum of appeal in three (3) legibly typewritten copies which shall
state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof; the relief
prayed for; and a statement of the date when the appellant received the
appealed decision, resolution or order and a certificate of non-forum shopping
with proof of service on the other party of such appeal. A mere notice of appeal
 without complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the
running of the period for perfecting an appeal. (Italics supplied)

2. G.R. Nos. 178034 & 178117 G R. Nos. 186984-85

ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE, vs.EULALIO GANZON, EGI-MANAGERS, INC. and E. GANZON, INC.,
October 17, 2013
REYES, J
SC EN BANC

 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. The lawmakers clearly
intended to make the bond a mandatory requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the
employer as inferred from the provision that an appeal by the employer may be
perfected "only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond." The word "only" makes it
clear that the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer is the essential and
exclusive means by which an employer’s appeal may be perfected. x x x.

 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. Non-
compliance therewith renders the decision of the Labor Arbiter final and executory. This
requirement is intended to assure the workers that if they prevail in the case, they will
receive the money judgment in their favor upon the dismissal of the employer’s appeal.
It is intended to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay or evade their
obligation to satisfy their employees’ just and lawful claims.

 In accordance with the foregoing, although the general rule provides that an appeal in
labor cases from a decision involving a monetary award may be perfected only upon the
posting of a cash or surety bond, the Court has relaxed this requirement under certain
exceptional circumstances in order to resolve controversies on their merits. These
circumstances include: (1) the fundamental consideration of substantial justice; (2) the
prevention of miscarriage of justice or of unjust enrichment; and (3) special
circumstances of the case combined with its legal merits, and the amount and the issue
involved. Guidelines that are applicable in the reduction of appeal bonds were also
explained in Nicol v. Footjoy Industrial Corporation. The bond requirement in appeals
involving monetary awards has been and may be relaxed in meritorious cases, including
instances in which (1) there was substantial compliance with the Rules, (2) surrounding
facts and circumstances constitute meritorious grounds to reduce the bond, (3) a liberal
interpretation of the requirement of an appeal bond would serve the desired objective
of resolving controversies on the merits, or (4) the appellants, at the very least,
exhibited their willingness and/or good faith by posting a partial bond during the
reglementary period.
3. G.R. No. 207156
TURKS SHAWARMA COMPANY/GEM ZEÑAROSA vs FELICIANO Z. PAJARON and LARRY A.
CARBONILLA
January 16, 2017
DEL CASTILLO, J.
SC FIRST DIVISION

 The Court has time and again held that "[t]he right to appeal is neither a natural right
nor is it a component of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be
exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law."
 "The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the
rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost."
 Article 223 of the Labor Code, which sets forth the rules on appeal from the Labor
Arbiter's monetary award, provides:
o 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. Such
appeal may be entertained only on any off the following grounds:
 (a) If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of
the Labor Arbiter;
 (b) If the decision, order or award was secured through fraud or
coercion, including graft and corruption;
 (c) If made purely on questions of law; and
 (d) If serious errors in the finding of facts are raised which would cause
grave or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.
 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.

4. Lei Sheryll Fernandez v. Botica Claudio, G.R. No. 205870, August 13, 2014
 SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 205870 August 13, 2014
LEI SHERYLL FERNANDEZ, vs. BOTICA CLAUDIO represented by GUADALUPE JOSE,
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
 While Article 223 of the Labor Code and Section 3(a), Rule VI of the then New Rules of
Procedure of the NLRC require the party intending to appeal from the LA’s ruling to
furnish the other party a copy of his memorandum of appeal, the Court has heldthat the
mere failure to serve the same upon the opposing party does not bar the NLRC from
giving due course to an appeal. Such failure is only treated as a formal lapse, an
 excusable neglect, and, hence, not a jurisdictional defect warranting the dismissal of an
appeal. Instead, the NLRC should require the appellant to provide the opposing party
copies of the notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal.

5. Cawaling v. Menese, A.C. No. 9698, November 13, 2013

 In a nutshell, the rules are explicit that the filing of a bond for the perfection of an
appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. The requirement that employers post a cash or
surety bond to perfect their appeal is apparently intended to assure workers that if they
prevail in the case, they will receive the money judgment in their favor upon the
dismissal of the former’s appeal. It was intended to discourage employers from using an
appeal to delay, or even evade, their obligations to satisfy their employees' just and
lawful claims. However, the whole essence of requiring the filing of bond is defeated if
the bond issued turned out to be invalid due to the surety company's expired
accreditation.
 The defense of good faith does not, in any way, render the issued bond valid. The fact
remains that due to the expired accreditation of Intra Strata, it has no authority to issue
the subject bond. It was improper to honor the appeal bond issued by a surety company
which was no longer accredited by this Court. Having no authority to issue judicial bonds
not only does Intra Strata cease to be a reputable surety company – the bond it likewise
issued was null and void.

6. G.R. No. 209499

MA. CHARITO C. GADIA, ET AL vs SYKES ASIA, INC.ET AL
January 28, 2015
PERLAS-BERNABE, J
SC FIRST DIVISION
 At the outset, it must be stressed that to justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of
certiorari, petitioners must satisfactorily show that the court or quasi-judicial authority
gravely abused the discretion conferred upon it. Grave abuse of discretion connotes
judgment exercised in a capricious and whimsical manner that is tantamount to lack of
jurisdiction. To be considered "grave," discretion must be exercised in a despotic
manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty
enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law.

 In labor disputes, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when, inter
alia, its findings and the conclusions reached thereby are not supported by substantial
evidence. This requirement of substantial evidence is clearly expressed in Section 5, Rule
133 of the Rules of Court which provides that "in cases filed before administrative or
quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial
 evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion."

 Tested against these considerations, the Court finds that the CA correctly granted
respondents’ certiorari petition before it, since the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in
ruling that petitioners were regular employees of Sykes Asia when the latter had
established by substantial evidence that they were merely project-based.

7. G.R. No. 138270 June 28, 2001

SEA POWER SHIPPING ENTERPRISES INC., vs
COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ROSALINDA E. SAQUILON,
respondents.
BUENA, J.:
SECOND DIVISION
 A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, or final order or resolution, of
the Court of Appeals x x x, as in this case, may file with the Supreme Court a verified
petition for review on certiorari7 within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment,
final order or resolution appealed from.

 Petitioner, instead of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, filed with this Court the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65, an improper
remedy as pointed out by the Solicitor General in his comment to the petition. By
availing of a wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal, the petition merits an outright
dismissal pursuant to Circular No. 2-90.

 It is true that a litigation is not a game of technicalities and that the rules of procedure
should not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial justice. However, it does not
mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of
the orderly presentation and assessment of the issues and their just resolution.12 It
must be emphasized that procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed simply
because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantial
rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most
persuasive of reasons.13 Thus in Tan vs. Court of Appeals14 we have held that:

o "Liberal construction of this rule has been allowed by this Court in the following
cases: (1) where a rigid application will result in manifest failure or miscarriage
of justice, especially if a party successfully shows that the alleged defect in the
questioned final and executory judgment is not apparent on its face or from the
recitals contained therein; (2) where the interest of substantial justice will be
 served; (3) where the resolution of the motion is addressed solely to the sound
and judicious discretion of the court; and (4) where the injustice to the adverse
party is not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not
complying with the procedure prescribed."

8. THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 157371. July 15, 2005]
ELMER G. ANDAYA vs NLRC
PANGANIBAN, J.:

 Technical rules of procedure are not strictly adhered to in labor cases. In the interest of
substantial justice, new or additional evidence may be introduced on appeal before the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Allowing this move would be proper,
provided due process is observed by giving the opposing party sufficient opportunity to
meet and rebut the new or additional evidence.
 The fact that the payroll and the CBA were submitted for the first time on appeal before
the NLRC does not mean that they cannot be given evidentiary weight. In labor cases,
technical rules of evidence are not binding. Labor officials are encouraged to use all
reasonable means to ascertain the facts speedily and objectively, with little resort to
technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of substantial justice. Thus, even if
the evidence was not submitted to the labor arbiter, the fact that it was duly introduced
on appeal to respondent commission was enough basis for it to admit them.

9. G.R. No. 206612

TOYOTA ALABANG, INC. vs. EDWIN GAMES
August 17, 2015
SC FIRST DIVISION
SERENO, C.J.

 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.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.
 The NLRC's reasoning that no appeal may be taken from an order of execution of a final
and executory judgment is also rooted in case law. Jurisprudence dictates that a final
and executory decision of the LA can no longer be reversed or modified. After all, just as
a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the
winning party have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of the
 case. On this basis, theCA did not grievously err when it concluded that the ruling of the
NLRC denying petitioner's appeal was not baseless, arbitrary, whimsical, or despotic.

10. G.R. No. 168985

ACCESSORIES SPECIALIST INC., ET AL vs ERLINDA B. ALABANZA,
July 23, 2008
NACHURA, J
SC THIRD DIVISION

 The posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases involving

monetary awards from the decision of the LA. The intention of the lawmakers to make
the bond a mandatory requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer is
clearly limned in the provision that an appeal by the employer may be perfected "only
upon the posting of a cash or surety bond." The word "only" makes it perfectly plain
that the lawmakers intended the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer to be
the essential and exclusive means by which an employer's appeal may be perfected. The
word "may" refers to the perfection of an appeal as optional on the part of the defeated
party, but not to the compulsory posting of an appeal bond, if he desires to appeal. The
meaning and the intention of the legislature in enacting a statute must be determined
from the language employed; and where there is no ambiguity in the words used, then
there is no room for construction.

 The filing of the bond is not only mandatory but also a jurisdictional requirement that
must be complied with in order to confer jurisdiction upon the NLRC. Non-compliance
therewith renders the decision of the LA final and executory. This requirement is
intended to assure the workers that if they prevail in the case, they will receive the
money judgment in their favor upon the dismissal of the employer's appeal. It is
intended to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay or evade their
obligation to satisfy their employees' just and lawful claims. x x