7/28/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest
1/20G.R. No. 196830.February 29,
2012.*CESARV.GARCIA,CARLOSRAZON,ALBERTODEGUZMAN,TOMASRAZON,OMERE.PALO,RIZALDEVALENCIA,ALLANBASA,JESSIEGARCIA,JUANITOPARAS,
ALEJANDRO ORAG, ROMMEL PANGAN,
RUELSOLIMAN,andCENENCANLAPAN,representedbyCESARV.GARCIA,petitioners,vs.KJCOMMERCIALand
REYNALDO QUE,
respondents.LaborLawAppealsAppealBondThefilingofamotiontoreducebondandcompliancewiththetwoconditionsstoptherunningoftheperiodtoperfectanappeal.TheRulesofProcedureoftheNLRCallowsthefilingofamotiontoreducebondsubjecttotwoconditions:(1)thereismeritoriousground,and(2)abondinareasonableamountisposted.Section6ofArticle
VI states: No motion to reduce bond shall be entertainedexcept on
meritorious grounds and upon the posting of a bond in
areasonableamountinrelationtothemonetaryaward.Themerefilingofthemotiontoreducebondwithoutcompliancewiththerequisitesintheprecedingparagraphshallnotstoptherunningof
the period to perfect an appeal. The filing of a motion to
reducebond and compliance with the two conditions stop the running
oftheperiodtoperfectanappeal.InMcBurniev.Ganzon,600SCRA 658 (2009),
the Court held: xxx [T]he bond may be reducedupon motion by the
employer, this is subject to the conditions
that(1)themotiontoreducethebondshallbebasedonmeritoriousgrounds and
(2) a reasonable amount in relation to the
monetaryawardispostedbytheappellant,otherwisethefilingofthemotion
to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period toperfect
an
appeal.SameSameSameNationalLaborRelationsCommission(NLRC)RulesofProcedureSection2,ArticleIoftheRulesofProcedure
of the NLRC states that, These Rules shall be liberallyconstrued to
carry out the objectives of the Constitution, the
LaborCodeofthePhilippinesandotherrelevantlegislations,andtoassistthepartiesinobtainingjust,expeditiousandinexpensiveresolution
and7/28/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest
2/20_______________*SECOND DIVISION.397VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 29, 2012
397Garcia vs. KJ
Commercialsettlementoflabordisputes.Section2,ArticleIoftheRulesofProcedure
of the NLRC states that, These Rules shall be
liberallyconstruedtocarryouttheobjectivesoftheConstitution,theLabor
Code of the Philippines and other relevant legislations, andto
assist the parties in obtaining just, expeditious and
inexpensiveresolutionandsettlementoflabordisputes.Inordertogivefulleffecttotheprovisionsonmotiontoreducebond,theappellantmust
be allowed to wait for the ruling of the NLRC on the motioneven
beyond the 10day period to perfect an appeal. If the
NLRCgrantsthemotionandrulesthatthereisindeedmeritoriousgroundandthattheamountofthebondpostedisreasonable,thentheappealisperfected.IftheNLRCdeniesthemotion,theappellantmaystillfileamotionforreconsiderationasprovidedunderSection15,RuleVIIoftheRules.IftheNLRCgrantsthemotionforreconsiderationandrulesthatthereisindeedmeritoriousgroundandthattheamountofthebondpostedisreasonable,thentheappealisperfected.IftheNLRCdeniesthemotion,thenthedecisionofthelaborarbiterbecomesfinalandexecutory.SameSameSameTherulethatthefilingofamotiontoreducebondshallnotstoptherunningoftheperiodtoperfectanappealisnotabsolute.Inanycase,therulethatthefilingofamotion
to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period toperfect
an appeal is not absolute. The Court may relax the rule.
InIntertranz Container Lines, Inc. v. Bautista, 625 SCRA 75
(2010),theCourtheld:Jurisprudencetellsusthatinlaborcases,anappealfromadecisioninvolvingamonetaryawardmaybeperfectedonlyuponthepostingofacashorsuretybond.TheCourt,however,hasrelaxedthisrequirementundercertainexceptionalcircumstancesinordertoresolvecontroversiesontheirmerits.Thesecircumstancesinclude:(1)fundamentalconsiderationofsubstantialjustice(2)preventionofmiscarriageof
justice or of unjust enrichment and (3) special circumstances
ofthecasecombinedwithitslegalmerits,andtheamountandthe7/28/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest
3/20issue
involved.SameSameSameWhilethebondrequirementonappealsinvolving
monetary awards has been relaxed in certain cases,
thiscanonlybedonewheretherewassubstantialcomplianceoftheRulesorwheretheappellants,attheveryleast,exhibitedwillingnesstopaybypostingapartialbond.In
Ongv.CourtofAppeals, 438 SCRA 668 the Court held that the bond
requirementonappealsmayberelaxedwhenthereissubstantialcompliancewiththeRulesofProcedureoftheNLRCorwhentheappellantshowswillingnesstopostapartialbond.TheCourtheldthat,Whilethebondrequirementonappealsinvolvingmonetaryawards
has been relaxed398398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDGarcia vs. KJ
Commercialincertaincases,thiscanonlybedonewheretherewassubstantialcomplianceoftheRulesorwheretheappellants,attheveryleast,exhibitedwillingnesstopaybypostingapartialbond.PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt
of Appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Armando San Antonio for petitioners. Rodil L. Millado for
respondents.CARPIO,J.:The CaseThis is a petition1 for review on
certiorari under Rule
45oftheRulesofCourt.Thepetitionchallengesthe29April2011
Decision2oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.115851,affirmingthe8February3and25June42010ResolutionsoftheNationalLaborRelationsCommission(NLRC)inNLRCLACNo.1200406108.TheNLRCsetaside
the 30 October 2008 Decision5 of the Labor Arbiter inNLRC Case No.
RABIII02977906._______________1Rollo, pp. 1141.7/28/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest
4/202
Id.,atpp.4855.PennedbyAssociateJusticeSamuelH.Gaerlan,withAssociateJusticesRosmariD.CarandangandRamonR.Garcia,concurring.3Id.,
atpp.149157.PennedbyPresidingCommissionerHerminioV.Suelo, with
Commissioners Angelo Ang Palana and Numeriano D.
Villena,concurring.4Id., at pp. 163167.5Id., at pp. 102119. Penned
by Labor Arbiter Mariano L. Bactin.399VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 29, 2012
399Garcia vs. KJ CommercialThe
FactsRespondentKJCommercialisasoleproprietorship.Itownstrucksandengagesinthebusinessofdistributingcementproducts.Ondifferentdates,KJCommercialemployedastruckdriversandtruckhelperspetitionersCesar
V. Garcia, Carlos Razon, Alberto De Guzman, TomasRazon, Omer E.
Palo, Rizalde Valencia, Allan Basa,
JessieGarcia,JuanitoParas,AlejandroOrag,RommelPangan,Ruel Soliman,
and Cenen Canlapan
(petitioners).On2January2006,petitionersdemandedforaP40daily salary
increase. To pressure KJ Commercial to
granttheirdemand,theystoppedworkingandabandonedtheirtrucksattheNorthernCementPlantStationinSison,Pangasinan.Theyalsoblockedotherworkersfromreporting
to work.On3February2006,petitionersfiledwiththeLaborArbiter a
complaint6 for illegal dismissal, underpayment
ofsalaryandnonpaymentofserviceincentiveleaveandthirteenth month
pay.The Labor Arbiters RulingIn his 30 October 2008 Decision, the
Labor Arbiter
heldthatKJCommercialillegallydismissedpetitioners.TheLabor Arbiter
held:Afteracarefulexaminationandevaluationofthefactsandevidencesadducedbybothparties,wefindvalidandcogentreasonstodeclarethatthesecomplainantswereillegallydismissed
from their work to be entitled to their separation in lieu7/28/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest
5/20ofreinstatementequivalenttotheirsalaryforone(1)monthforevery
year of service and backwages from the time that they
wereterminated on January 2, 2006 up to the date of this
Decision.Wecarefullyexaminedthedefensesetupbytherespondentsthatthesecomplainantswerenotterminatedfromtheiremploymentbutweretheone[sic]whoabandonedtheirworkbystaging
strike_______________6Id., at p. 62.400400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATEDGarcia vs. KJ Commercialand refused to perform their work
as drivers of the trucks
ownedbytherespondentsonJanuary2,2006,visvis,he[sic]allegations and
claims of the complainants that when they
askedforanincreaseoftheirsalaryforP40.00,theywereillegallydismissedfromtheiremploymentwithoutdueprocess,andwegavemorecredenceandvaluetotheallegationsofthecomplainantsthattheywereillegallydismissedfromtheiremploymentwithoutdueprocessanddidnotabandoned[sic]their
work as the respondents wanted to project. We examined
thenarrationoffactsoftherespondentsintheirPositionPaper
andSupplementalPositionPaperandweconcludedthatthesecomplainantswereactuallyterminatedonJanuary2,2006anddidnotabandoned
[sic]theirjobsasclaimedbytherespondentswhentherespondents,intheirPositionPaper,admittedthattheir
cement plant was shutdown on January 3, 2006 and when itresumed its
operation on January 7, 2006, they ordered the otherdrivers to get
the trucks in order that the hauling of the
cementswillnotincurfurtherdelayandthattheirbusinesswillnotbeprejudiced.Grantingforthesakeofdiscussionthatindeedthesecomplainants
abandoned their work on January 2, 2006, why thenthat [sic] the
cement plant was shutdown on January 3, 2006
andresumedoperationonJanuary7,2006,whentherearefifty(50)driversoftherespondentsandonlythirteen(13)ofthemwereallegedlystoppedfromworking.Further,ifthesecomplainantsactuallyabandonedtheirwork,asclaimedbytherespondents,theymiserablyfailedtoshowbysubstantialevidencethatthesecomplainantsdeliberatelyandunjustifiablyrefusedtoresumetheir
employment.7/28/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest
6/20xxxxTheactsofthesecomplainantsinfilingthisinstantcaseamonthaftertheywereterminatedfromtheirworkismorethansufficientevidencetoproveandshowthattheydonothavetheintentionofabandoningtheirwork.Whileweacknowledgedtheofferoftherespondentsforthesecomplainantstoreturnbacktoworkduringthemandatoryconference,thefactthatthesecomplainantswereillegallyterminatedandpreventedfromperformingtheirworkastruckdriversoftherespondentsandthat
there was no compliance with the substantive and proceduraldue
process of terminating an employee, their subsequent offer toreturn
to work will not cure the401VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 29, 2012 401Garcia
vs. KJ Commercialdefect that there was already illegal dismissal
committed againstthese complainants.7KJ Commercial appealed to the
NLRC. It filed before theNLRC a motion to reduce bond and posted a
P50,000 cashbond.The NLRCs RulingIn its 9 March 2009
Decision,8theNLRCdismissedtheappeal. The NLRC
held:FiledwithrespondentsappellantsAppealMemorandumisaMotiontoReduceAppealBondandacashbondofP50,000.00only.
xxxWe find no merit on [sic] the respondentsappellants Motion.
ItmustbestressedthatunderSection6,RuleVIofthe2005RevisedRulesofthisCommission,amotiontoreducebondshallonly
be entertained when the following requisites concur:1.The motion is
founded on meritorious ground
and2.Abondofreasonableamountinrelationtothemonetaryaward is
posted.Wenotethatwhilerespondentsappellantsclaimthattheycouldnotpossiblyproduceenoughcashfortherequiredappealbond,
they are unwilling to at least put up a property to secure
asuretybond.Understandably,nosuretyagencywouldnormallyaccept a
surety obligation involving a substantial amount withouta guarantee
that it would be indemnified in case the surety bond7/28/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest
7/20postedisforfeitedinfavorofajudgmentcreditor.Respondentsappellantsinsinuationthatnosuretycompanycanfinishtheprocessing
of a surety bond in ten days time is not worthy of beliefas it is
contrary to ordinary business experience. What is obviousis that
respondentsappellants are not willing to accept the usualconditions
of a surety agreement that is why no surety bond couldbe processed.
The reduction of the required bond is not a matter
ofrighto[n]thepartofthemovantbutlieswithinthesounddiscretion of the
NLRC upon_______________7Id., at pp. 108111.8Id., at pp.
132136.402402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDGarcia vs. KJ
Commercialshowingofmeritoriousgroundsx x
x.Inthiscase,wefindthattheinstantmotionisnotfoundedonameritoriousground.x
x
xMoreover,wenotethattheP50,000.00cashbondpostedbyrespondentsappellants
which represents less than two (2)
percentofthemonetaryawardisdismallydisproportionatetothemonetaryawardofP2,612,930.00andthattheamountofbondpostedbyrespondentsappellantsisnotreasonableinrelationtothe
monetary award. xxx A motion to reduce bond that does
notsatisfytheconditionsrequiredunderNLRCRulesshallnotstopthe
running of the period to perfect an appeal
xxx.Conversely,respondentsappellantsfailedtoperfectanappealfor
failure to post the required bond.9KJ Commercial filed a motion10
for reconsideration
andpostedaP2,562,930suretybond.Inits8February2010Resolution, the
NLRC granted the motion and set aside theLabor Arbiters 30 October
2008 Decision. The NLRC held:xxx [T]his Commission opts to resolve
and grant the
MotionforReconsiderationfiledbyrespondentappellantseekingforreconsiderationofOurDecisionpromulgatedonMarch9,2009dismissingtheAppealfornonperfection,therebeinganhonesteffort
by the appellants to comply with putting up the full
amountoftherequiredappealbond.Moreover,consideringthemeritoftheappeal,bygrantingthemotionforreconsideration,theparamountinterestofjusticeisbetterservedintheresolutionofthis
case.7/28/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest
8/20xxxxGoing
overtherecordofthecase,thisCommissionnotedthatinrespondentsSupplementalPositionPaper,indenyingcomplainantsimputationofillegaldismissal,respondentscategoricallyalleged..[.]thatcomplainantswerenotillegallydismissed
but on January 2, 2006, they abandoned their work
bymeansof[]workstoppage[]ortheyengagedinan[]illegalstrike[] when
they demanded for a higher rate..[.] that while
theirrespectiveassignedtruckswereallinthecementplantready
tobeloaded,complainantsparalyzedrespondentshaulingortrucking
operation by staging a_______________9 Id., at pp. 133135.10 Id.,
at pp. 137138.403VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 29, 2012 403Garcia vs. KJ
CommercialworkstoppageatthepremisesofKJCommercialcompoundbyfurther
blocking their codrivers not to report for work. We
haveobservedthatdespitethesedamagingallegations,complainantsneverbotheredtodisputenorcontradictedthesematerialallegations.Complainantssilenceonthesematerialallegationsconsequentlylendssupporttorespondentsappellants[]contention
that complainants were never dismissed at all but
hadstoppeddrivingthehaulertruckassignedtoeachofthemwhentheir demand
for salary increase in the amount they wish was notgranted by
respondentsappellants.Moreover,contrarytothefindingsoftheLaborArbiter,thepurported
shutdown of the cement plant being cited by the
LaborArbiteraquoastheprincipalcauseofcomplainantspurporteddismissalcannotbeattributedtorespondentsbecauseitwasneverestablishedbyevidencethatrespondentsweretheowner[sic]ofthecementplantwherecomplainantsastruckdriverswere
hauling cargoes of cement with trucks owned by
respondentswhosebusinessisconfinedtothatofacementdistributorandcargotruckhauler.Basedontheundisputedaccountofrespondentsappellants,itappearsthatthecementplantwascompelled
to shut down because the hauling or trucking
operationwasparalyzedduetocomplainantsresorttoworkstoppagebyrefusingtodrivetheirhaulertrucksdespitetheorderofthemanagementforthemtogetthetruckswhichblockadedthe7/28/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest
9/20cement plant.Furthermore, a perusal of the complainants
position paper
andamendedpositionpaperfailedtoallegetheovertactsshowinghowtheywereinfactdismissedon02January2006.Thecomplainants
had not even alleged that they were specifically
toldthattheyweredismissedaftertheydemandedforasalaryincrease or any
statement to that effect. Neither had they
allegedthattheywerepreventedfromreportingforwork.Thisonlyshows
there was never a dismissal to begin
with.xxxxWecannotaffirmtheLaborArbitersconclusionsabsentshowingafactofterminationorcircumstancesunderwhichthedismissalwaseffected.ThoughonlysubstantialevidenceisrequiredinproceedingsbeforetheLaborArbitertosupportalitigantsclaim,thesamestillrequiresevidenceseparateanddifferent,andsomethingwhichsupportstheallegationsaffirmativelymade.Thecomplainantsclaimthattheyweredismissed
on 02 January 2006, absent404404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATEDGarcia vs. KJ
Commercialproofthereoforanysupportingevidencetheretoisatbestselfserving.11Petitionersfiledamotionforreconsideration.Inits25June
2010 Resolution, the NLRC denied the motion for lackof merit. The
NLRC
held:WestressthatitiswithinthepoweranddiscretionofthisCommissiontograntordenyamotiontoreduceappealbond.Havingearlierdeniedthemotiontoreducebondoftherespondentsappellants,thisCommissionisnotprecludedfromreconsideringitsearlierDecisiononsecondlookwhenitfindsmeritoriousgroundtoservetheendsofjustice.Settledisthenorm
in the matter of appeal bonds that letterperfect rules
mustyieldtothebroaderinterestofsubstantialjusticex x x.Inthiscase,
the Decision of the Labor Arbiter had not really become
finalandexecutoryasrespondentstimelyfiledaMemorandumofAppeal with a
Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond and a partial
appealbond.Althoughtherespondents[]appealwasdismissed,intheearlierdecision,thesameDecisionwaslaterreconsideredonconsiderationsthattheLaborArbitercommittedpalpableerrorsinhisfindingsandthemonetaryawardstotheappelleesare7/28/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest
10/20securedbyapartialbondandthenlater,byanappealbondforthe full
amount of the monetary
awards.12PetitionersfiledwiththeCourtofAppealsapetition13for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.The Court of Appeals
RulingInits29April2011Decision,theCourtofAppealsdismissed the
petition and affirmed the NLRCs 8 Februaryand 25 June 2010
Resolutions. The Court of Appeals
held:Afterscrupulouslyexaminingthecontrastingpositionsoftheparties,andtheconflictingdecisionsofthelabortribunals,Wefind
the records of the case bereft of evidence to substantiate
theconclu_______________11 Id., at pp. 150156.12 Id., at p. 166.13
Id., at pp. 168188.405VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 29, 2012 405Garcia vs. KJ
Commercialsions reached by the Labor Arbiter that petitioners were
illegallydismissed from employment.While petitioners vehemently
argue that they were
unlawfullyseparatedfromwork,recordsaredevoidofevidencetoshowthefactofdismissal.Neitherwasthereanyevidenceofferedbypetitionerstoprovethattheywerenolongerallowedtoperformtheir
duties as truck drivers or they were prevented from
enteringKJCommercialspremises,exceptfortheiremptyandgeneralallegationsthattheywereillegallydismissedfromemployment.SuchbareandsweepingstatementcontainsnothingbutemptyimputationofafactthatcouldhardlybegivenanyevidentiaryweightbythisCourt.Attheveryleast,petitionersshouldhavedetailedorelaboratedthecircumstancessurroundingtheirdismissalorsubstantiatetheirclaimsbysubmittingevidencetobutresssuchcontention.Withoutadoubt,petitionersallegationofillegaldismissalhasnolegtostandon.Accordingly,theyshouldnotexpectthisCourttoswallowtheirasseverationhook,line
and sinker in the absence of supporting proof. Allegation
thatonewasillegallydismissedfromworkisnotamagicwordthat7/28/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest
11/20once invoked will automatically sway this Court to rule in
favor ofthe party invoking it. There must first be substantial
evidence toprove that indeed there was illegal dismissal before the
employerbears the burden to prove the contrary.14Hence, the present
petition.The
IssuePetitionersraiseasissuethattheLaborArbiters30October2008Decisionbecamefinalandexecutorythus,the
NLRCs 8 February and 25 June 2010 Resolutions
andtheCourtofAppeals29April2011Decisionarevoidforlackofjurisdiction.PetitionersclaimthatKJCommercialfailed
to perfect an appeal since the motion to reduce bonddid not stop
the running of the period to appeal.The Courts RulingThe petition
is unmeritorious._______________14 Id., at p. 53.406406 SUPREME
COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDGarcia vs. KJ
CommercialWhenpetitionersfiledwiththeCourtofAppealsapetitionforcertiorari,theydidnotraiseasissuethattheLabor
Arbiters 30 October 2008 Decision had become
finalandexecutory.Theyenumeratedtheissuesintheirpetition:GROUNDS
FOR THE
PETITIONI.THENLRCCOMMITTEDGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETIONTANTAMOUNTTOLACKOREXCESSOFJURISDICTIONWHENITREVERSEDTHEDECISIONOFTHELABORARBITERAQUOANDPRONOUNCEDTHATTHEPETITIONERS
WERE NOT ILLEGALLY DISMISSED
DESPITECLEARANDSUBSTANTIALEVIDENCEONTHERECORDSSHOWINGTHATCOMPLAINANTSWEREREGULAREMPLOYEESTOBEENTITLEDTOSECURITYOFTENUREANDWEREILLEGALLYDISMISSEDFROMTHEIR7/28/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest
12/20EMPLOYMENT.II.THENLRCHASCOMMITTEDGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETIONTANTAMOUNTTOLACKOREXCESSOFJURISDICTIONWHENITGIVE[sic]MUCHWEIGHTTOPRIVATERESPONDENTS[]BASELESSALLEGATIONSINITS[sic]MOTIONFORRECONSIDERATIONWHENIT[sic]ALLEGED
THAT COMPLAINANTS HAD ABANDONED
THEIRWORKBYMEANSOFWORKSTOPPAGEORTHEYENGAGEDINANILLEGALSTRIKEWHENTHEYDEMANDED
FOR A HIGHER
RATE.III.THENLRCGRAVELYERREDTANTAMOUNTTOLACKOREXCESSOFJURISDICTIONWHENITCONCLUDEDTHATCOMPLAINANTSPARALYZEDHAULINGORTRUCKINGOPERATIONBYSTAGINGAWORKSTOPPAGEATTHEPREMISESOFKJCOMMERCIALCOMPOUNDBYFURTHERBLOCKINGTHEIRCODRIVERSNOTTOREPORTFORWORK
WITHOUT A SINGLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUCHALLEGATIONS OF PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS.407VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 29, 2012 407Garcia vs. KJ
CommercialIV.THENLRCGRAVELYERREDWHENITCONCLUDEDTHATTHEPRINCIPALCAUSEOFCOMPLAINANTSDISMISSALWASDUETOTHEPURPORTEDSHUTDOWNOFTHECEMENTPLANTCITEDBYTHELABORARBITERINHISDECISION.15Accordingly,theCourtofAppealslimiteditselftotheresolutionoftheenumeratedissues.Inits29April2011Decision,
the Court of Appeals
held:Hence,petitionersseekrecoursebeforethisCourtviathisPetitionforCertiorarichallengingtheNLRCResolutionsandraising
the following
issues:I.THENLRCCOMMITTEDGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETIONTANTAMOUNTTOLACKOREXCESSOFJURISDICTIONWHENITREVERSEDTHEDECISIONOFTHELABORARBITERAQUOANDPRONOUNCEDTHATPETITIONERSWERENOTILLEGALLYDISMISSEDDESPITECLEARAND7/28/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest
13/20SUBSTANTIALEVIDENCEONTHERECORDSSHOWINGTHATPETITIONERSWEREREGULAREMPLOYEESTOBEENTITLEDTOSECURITYOFTENUREANDWEREILLEGALLY
DISMISSED FROM THEIR
EMPLOYMENT.II.THENLRCHASCOMMITTEDGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETIONTANTAMOUNTTOLACKOREXCESSOFJURISDICTIONWHENITGAVEMUCHWEIGHTTOPRIVATERESPONDENTSBASELESSALLEGATIONSINITS[sic]MOTIONFORRECONSIDERATIONWHENIT[sic]ALLEGEDTHATPETITIONERSHADABANDONEDTHEIRWORKBYMEANSOFWORKSTOPPAGEORTHEYENGAGEDINANILLEGALSTRIKEWHENTHEYDEMANDED
FOR A HIGHER RATE._______________15 Id., at pp. 174176.408408
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDGarcia vs. KJ CommercialIII.THE
NLRCGRAVELYERREDWHENITCONCLUDEDTHATPETITIONERSPARALYZEDHAULINGANDTRUCKINGOPERATIONBYSTAGINGAWORKSTOPPAGEATTHEPREMISESOFKJCOMMERCIALCOMPOUNDBYFURTHERBLOCKINGTHEIRCODRIVERSNOTTOREPORTFORWORK
WITHOUT A SINGLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUCHALLEGATIONS OF PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS.IV.THE NLRCGRAVELYERREDWHENITCONCLUDEDTHATTHE PRINCIPAL
CAUSE OF PETITIONERS DISMISSAL
WASDUETOTHEPURPORTEDSHUTDOWNOFTHECEMENTPLANT CITED BY THE LABOR
ARBITER IN HIS
DECISION.16Petitonerscannot,forthefirsttime,raiseasissueintheir
petition filed with this Court that the Labor
Arbiters30October2008Decisionhadbecomefinalandexecutory.Points of
law, theories and arguments not raised before
theCourtofAppealswillnotbeconsideredbythisCourt.Otherwise,KJCommercialwillbedenieditsrighttodueprocess.InTolosav.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,17
the Court held:7/28/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest
14/20Petitionercontendsthatthelaborarbitersmonetaryawardhasalreadyreachedfinality,sinceprivaterespondentswerenotable
to file a timely appeal before the
NLRC.Thisargumentcannotbepasseduponinthisappeal,becauseitwasnotraisedinthetribunalsaquo.Wellsettledistherulethatissuesnotraisedbelowcannotberaisedforthefirsttimeonappeal.Thus,pointsoflaw,theories,andargumentsnotbroughttotheattentionofthe
Court of Appeals need notand ordinarily will notbeconsidered by
this Court. Petitioners allegation cannot
beacceptedbythisCourtonitsfacetodosowouldbetantamounttoadenialofrespondentsrighttodueprocess._______________16
Id., at pp. 5152.17 449 Phil. 271 401 SCRA 291 (2003).409VOL. 667,
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 409Garcia vs. KJ CommercialFurthermore, whether
respondents were able to appeal on
timeisaquestionoffactthatcannotbeentertainedinapetitionforreviewunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.Ingeneral,thejurisdiction
of this Court in cases brought before it from the
CourtofAppealsislimitedtoareviewoferrorsoflawallegedlycommitted by
the court a quo.18 (Emphasis
supplied)KJCommercialsfilingofamotiontoreducebondanddelayedpostingoftheP2,562,930suretybonddidnotrendertheLaborArbiters30October2008Decisionfinaland
executory. The Rules of Procedure of the NLRC
allowsthefilingofamotiontoreducebondsubjecttotwoconditions:(1)thereismeritoriousground,and(2)abondinareasonableamountisposted.Section6ofArticleVIstates:Nomotiontoreducebondshallbeentertainedexceptonmeritoriousgroundsanduponthepostingofabondinareasonable
amount in relation to the monetary
award.Themerefilingofthemotiontoreducebondwithoutcompliancewiththerequisitesintheprecedingparagraphshallnot
stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.7/28/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest
15/20Thefilingofamotiontoreducebondandcompliancewiththetwoconditionsstoptherunningoftheperiodtoperfect
an appeal. In McBurnie v. Ganzon,19 the Court held:xxx [T]he bond
may be reduced upon motion by the
employer,thisissubjecttotheconditionsthat(1)themotiontoreducethebond
shall be based on meritorious grounds and (2) a
reasonableamountinrelationtothemonetaryawardispostedbytheappellant,
otherwise the filing of the motion to reduce bond shallnot stop the
running of the period to perfect an appeal.20_______________18 Id.,
at pp. 284285 pp. 301302.19 G.R. Nos. 178034, 178117, 186984 and
186985, 18 September 2009,600 SCRA 658.20 Id., at p. 669.410410
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDGarcia vs. KJ
CommercialTheNLRChasfulldiscretiontograntordenythemotiontoreducebond,21anditmayruleonthemotionbeyondthe10dayperiodwithinwhichtoperfectanappeal.
Obviously, at the time of the filing of the motion toreduce bond
and posting of a bond in a reasonable
amount,thereisnoassurancewhethertheappellantsmotionisindeedbasedonmeritoriousgroundandwhetherthebondheorshepostedisofareasonableamount.Thus,theappellantalwaysrunstheriskoffailingtoperfectanappeal.Section2,ArticleIoftheRulesofProcedureoftheNLRC
states that, These Rules shall be liberally
construedtocarryouttheobjectivesoftheConstitution,theLaborCode of
the Philippines and other relevant legislations,
andtoassistthepartiesinobtainingjust,expeditiousandinexpensive
resolution and settlement of labor disputes.
Inordertogivefulleffecttotheprovisionsonmotiontoreduce bond, the
appellant must be allowed to wait for
therulingoftheNLRConthemotionevenbeyondthe10dayperiod to perfect an
appeal. If the NLRC grants the motionand rules that there is indeed
meritorious ground and
thattheamountofthebondpostedisreasonable,thentheappealisperfected.IftheNLRCdeniesthemotion,the7/28/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest
16/20appellantmaystillfileamotionforreconsiderationasprovidedunderSection15,RuleVIIoftheRules.IftheNLRC
grants the motion for reconsideration and rules thatthere is indeed
meritorious ground and that the amount ofthe bond posted is
reasonable, then the appeal is
perfected.IftheNLRCdeniesthemotion,thenthedecisionofthelabor
arbiter becomes final and
executory.Inthepresentcase,KJCommercialfiledamotiontoreducebondandpostedaP50,000cashbond.WhentheNLRC
denied its motion, KJ Commercial filed a motion forreconsideration
and posted the full P2,562,930 surety bond.The NLRC then granted
the motion for reconsideration._______________21 Id., at p.
671.411VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 29, 2012 411Garcia vs. KJ CommercialIn
any case, the rule that the filing of a motion to reducebond shall
not stop the running of the period to perfect
anappealisnotabsolute.TheCourtmayrelaxtherule.InIntertranzContainerLines,Inc.v.Bautista,22theCourtheld:Jurisprudencetellsusthatinlaborcases,anappealfromadecision
involving a monetary award may be perfected only
uponthepostingofacashorsuretybond.TheCourt,however,hasrelaxed this
requirement under certain exceptional
circumstancesinordertoresolvecontroversiesontheirmerits.Thesecircumstancesinclude:(1)fundamentalconsiderationofsubstantialjustice(2)preventionofmiscarriageofjusticeorofunjustenrichmentand(3)specialcircumstancesofthecasecombinedwithitslegalmerits,andtheamountandtheissueinvolved.23In
Rosewood Processing, Inc. v. NLRC,24 the Court
held:Theperfectionofanappealwithinthereglementaryperiodandinthemannerprescribedbylawisjurisdictional,andnoncompliance
with such legal requirement is fatal and
effectivelyrendersthejudgmentfinalandexecutory.TheLaborCodeprovides:7/28/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest
17/20ART.223.Appeal.Decisions,awardsorordersoftheLaborArbiterarefinalandexecutoryunlessappealedtotheCommissionbyanyorbothpartieswithinten(10)calendardaysfromreceiptofsuchdecisions,awards,ororders.Incaseofajudgmentinvolvingamonetaryaward,anappealbytheemployermaybeperfectedonlyuponthepostingofacashorsuretybondissuedbyareputablebonding
company duly accredited by the Commission in theamount equivalent
to the monetary award in the judgmentappealed from.Indisputable is
the legal doctrinethattheappealofadecisioninvolving a monetary
award in labor cases may be perfected
onlyuponthepostingofacashorsuretybond.Thelawmakersintendedthepostingofthebondtobeanindispensablerequirement
to perfect an employers appeal._______________22 G.R. No. 187693,
13 July 2010, 625 SCRA 75.23 Id., at p. 84.24 352 Phil. 1013 290
SCRA 408 (1998).412412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDGarcia vs. KJ
CommercialHowever,inanumberofcases,thisCourthasrelaxedthisrequirementinordertobringabouttheimmediateandappropriateresolutionofcontroversiesonthemerits.Someofthesecasesinclude:(a)counselsrelianceonthefootnoteofthenotice
of the decision of the labor arbiter that the aggrieved
partymayappealwithinten(10)workingdays(b)fundamentalconsiderationofsubstantialjustice(c)preventionofmiscarriageofjusticeorofunjustenrichment,aswherethetardyappealisfromadecisiongrantingseparationpaywhichwasalreadygranted
in an earlier final decision and (d) special circumstancesof the
case combined with its legal merits or the amount and theissue
involved.InQuiambaovs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,thisCourtruledthatarelaxationoftheappealbondrequirementcould
be justified by substantial compliance with the
rule.InGlobeGeneralServicesandSecurityAgencyvs.NationalLabor
Relations Commission, the Court observed that the
NLRC,inactualpractice,allowsthereductionoftheappealbondupon7/28/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest
18/20motionoftheappellantandonmeritoriousgroundshence,petitionersinthatcaseshouldhavefiledamotiontoreducethebond
within the reglementary period for appeal.That
istheexactsituationinthecaseatbar.Here,petitionerclaimstohavereceivedthelaborarbitersDecisiononApril6,1993.OnApril16,1993,itfiled,togetherwithitsmemorandumonappealandnoticeofappeal,amotiontoreducetheappealbondaccompaniedbyasuretybondforfiftythousandpesosissuedbyPrudentialGuaranteeandAssurance,Inc.Ignoringpetitionersmotion(toreducebond),RespondentCommissionrendered
its assailed Resolution dismissing the appeal due to thelate filing
of the appeal
bond.ThesolicitorgeneralarguesfortheaffirmationoftheassailedResolution
for the sole reason that the appeal bond, even if it
wasfiledontime,wasdefective,asitwasnotinanamountequivalenttothemonetaryawardinthejudgmentappealedfrom.
The Court
disagrees.WeholdthatpetitionersmotiontoreducethebondisasubstantialcompliancewiththeLaborCode.Thisholdingisconsistentwiththenormthatletterperfectrulesmustyieldtothe
broader interest of substantial justice.25_______________25 Id., at
pp. 10281031 pp. 420422.413VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 29, 2012 413Garcia
vs. KJ CommercialInOngv.CourtofAppeals,26 theCourtheldthatthebond
requirement on appeals may be relaxed when there
issubstantialcompliancewiththeRulesofProcedureoftheNLRCorwhentheappellantshowswillingnesstopostapartialbond.TheCourtheldthat,Whilethebondrequirementonappealsinvolvingmonetaryawardshasbeenrelaxedincertaincases,thiscanonlybedonewherethere
was substantial compliance of the Rules or where
theappellants,attheveryleast,exhibitedwillingnesstopayby posting a
partial bond.27In the present case, KJ Commercial showed
willingnesstopostapartialbond.Infact,itpostedaP50,000cashbond.InOng,theCourtheldthat,Petitionerinthesaidcasesubstantiallycompliedwiththerulesbypostinga7/28/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest
19/20partialsuretybondoffiftythousandpesosissuedbyPrudential
Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. while his motionto reduce appeal bond
was pending before the
NLRC.28Asidefrompostingapartialbond,KJCommercialimmediatelypostedthefullamountofthebondwhenitfileditsmotionforreconsiderationoftheNLRCs9March2009Decision.InDr.Postigov.PhilippineTuberculosisSociety,
Inc.,29 the Court held:x x
x[T]herespondentimmediatelysubmittedasupersedeasbondwithitsmotionforreconsiderationoftheNLRCresolutiondismissingitsappeal.InOngv.CourtofAppeals,weruledthattheaggrievedpartymayfiletheappealbondwithinthetendayreglementaryperiodfollowingthereceiptoftheresolutionoftheNLRC
to forestall the finality of such resolution. Hence, while
theappealofadecisioninvolvingamonetaryawardinlaborcasesmaybeperfectedonlyuponthepostingofacashorsuretybondandthepostingofthebondisanindispensablerequirementtoperfect
such an appeal, a_______________26 482 Phil. 170 438 SCRA 668
(2004).27 Id., at p. 181 p. 678.28 Id., at pp. 181182 p. 678.29 515
Phil. 601 479 SCRA 628 (2006).414414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATEDGarcia vs. KJ
Commercialrelaxationoftheappealbondrequirementcouldbejustifiedbysubstantial
compliance with the
rule.30WHEREFORE,theCourtDENIESthepetitionandAFFIRMSthe29April2011DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals
in CAG.R. SP No. 115851.SO ORDERED.Brion, Perez, Sereno and Reyes,
JJ., concur.Petition denied, judgment
affirmed.Notes.ItiswellwithintheNationalLaborRelationsCommissions(NLRCs)prerogativetodismisstheappealforfailureofthepetitionertocomplywiththe7/28/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest
20/20requirementsundertheNLRCRulesofProcedure.(Pedriatica, Inc. vs.
Rafaeles, 590 SCRA 161 [2009])Posting of a bond is indispensable to
the perfection of
anappealincasesinvolvingmonetaryawardsfromthedecision of the labor
arbiter. (Mindanao Times Corporationvs. Confesor, 611 SCRA 748
[2010])The rule on the posting of an appeal bond cannot
defeatthesubstantiverightsofrespondentstobefreefromanunwarrantedburdenofansweringforanillegaldismissalforwhichtheywereneverresponsibleSincethecomplainantsperformedtheirfunctionsasmasiadorandsentenciadorfreefromthedirectionandcontrolofrespondents,andthatintheconductoftheirwork,theyreliedmainlyontheirexpertisethatischaracteristicofthecockfightgambling,andwerenevergivenbyrespondentsanytoolneededfortheperformanceoftheirwork,theyarenotconsideredasemployeesofthecockpitoperator.(Semblantevs.CourtofAppeals,19thDivision,655
SCRA 444 [2011])o0o_______________30 Id., at pp. 607608 pp.
635636.Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.