Borja Estate vs. Ballad

G.R. No.
152550 June 8, 2005

BORJA ESTATE AND/OR THE HEIRS OF MANUEL AND PAULA BORJA and ATTY.
MILA LAUIGAN IN HER CAPACITY AS THE ESTATE ADMINISTRATOR,
petitioners,
vs.
SPOUSES ROTILLO BALLAD and ROSITA BALLAD, respondents.
FACTS: The case arose out of the complaint filed by private respondents Spouses
Rotillo and Rosita Ballad (Ballad spouses) against the Borjas for illegal dismissal, non
payment of 13th month pay, separation pay, incentive pay, holiday and premiums
pay plus differential pay, and moral and exemplary damages with the Regional
Arbitration Branch No. II of the NLRC in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, on 8 June 1999.
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.
As overseers, the Ballad spouses duties included the collection of owners share of
the harvest from the tenants and the delivery of such share to the estate
administrator, as well as to account for it. They also collected monthly rentals from
the lessees of the apartment and tendered the same to the administrator. They
were tasked to oversee the lands and buildings entrusted to them and were
instructed to report any untoward incident or incidents affecting said properties to
the administrator. They were allegedly required to work all day and night each week
including Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.
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.
when the spouses Manuel and Paula Borja went to the United States of America,
their children Lumen, Leonora and Amelia succeeded to the ownership and
management of the Borja Estate. On 16 October 1986, the Ballad spouses claimed
that Amelia or Mely, then residing in Rochester, New York, wrote then administrator
Mrs. Lim informing her that the heirs had extended the services of the Ballad
spouses and ordered Mrs. Lim to pay the hospitalization expenses of Rotillo Ballad
which accrued to Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00). It is also alleged that Mely had
instructed Mrs. Lim to cause the registration of the Ballad spouses as Social Security
System (SSS) members so that in case any of the latter gets sick, SSS will shoulder
their medical expenses and not the Borjas.
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. 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 twentyseven (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.
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.
Thus, the filing of a case against petitioners before the Labor Arbiter. The Borjas
interposed the defense that respondents had no cause of action against them
because the latter were not their employees. The Borjas insisted that the Ballad
spouses were allowed to reside within the premises of the Borja Estate only as a
gesture of gratitude for Rosita Ballads assistance in the registration of a parcel of
land; and that they were merely utilized to do some errands from time to time. As to
the money claims, the Borjas claimed the defense of prescription.
As aforestated, the Labor Arbiter ruled that the Ballad spouses had been illegally
dismissed, after concluding that they had been employees of the Borjas.
Borjas filed their appeal on 26 November 1999 before the NLRC together with a
Motion for Reduction of Bond. NLRC dismissed the petitioners Motion for Reduction
of Bond. Petitioners appeal was likewise dismissed in the same Resolution for
failure to post a cash or surety bond within the reglementary period.24 Petitioners
Motion for Reconsideration was also denied for lack of merit in another Resolution.
Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals by way of a special civil action
of certiorari. On 31 October 2001, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Resolutions of
the NLRC holding that the filing of a cash or surety bond is sine qua non to the
perfection of appeal from the labor monetarys award.
RULING: 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.
Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC implements this Article with its
Sections 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 providing pertinently as follows:
Section. 1. Periods of Appeal.- Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter and
the POEA Administrator 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, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter or of the Administrator, and in
case of a decision of the Regional Director or his duly authorized Hearing Officer
within five (5) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders . . .
Section 3. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal.(a) The appeal shall be filed within
the reglementary period as provided in Sec. 1 of this Rule; shall be under oath with
proof of payment of the required appeal fee and the posting of a cash or surety
bond as provided in Sec. 5 of this Rule; shall be accompanied by memorandum of
appeal 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, order or award and proof of service on the other
party of such appeal.
A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisite aforestated shall
not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal.
Section 5. Appeal Fee. The appellant shall pay an appeal fee of One hundred
(P100.00) pesos to the Regional Arbitration Branch, Regional Office, or to the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration and the official receipt of such
payment shall be attached to the records of the case.
Section 6. Bond. In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter, the Regional Director or
his duly authorized Hearing Officer involves a monetary award, an appeal by the
employer shall be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond, which
shall be in effect until final disposition of the case, issued by a reputable bonding
company duly accredited by the Commission or the Supreme Court in an amount
equivalent to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and attorneys fees.
The Commission may, in justifiable cases and upon Motion of the Appellant, reduce
the amount of the bond. The filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the
running of the period to perfect appeal.
Section 7. No extension of Period.- No motion or request for extension of the period
within which to perfect an appeal shall be allowed.
Thus, it is clear from the foregoing that the appeal from any decision, award or
order of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC shall be made within ten (10) calendar days
from receipt of such decision, award or order, and must be under oath, with proof of
payment of the required appeal fee accompanied by a memorandum of appeal. In
case the decision of the Labor Arbiter involves a monetary award, the appeal is
deemed perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond also within ten
(10) calendar days from receipt of such decision in an amount equivalent to the
monetary award.
Evidently, the posting of a cash or surety bond is mandatory. And the perfection of
an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only
mandatory but jurisdictional.39 To extend the period of the appeal is to delay the
case, a circumstance which would give the employer the chance to wear out the
efforts and meager resources of the worker to the point that the latter is
constrained to give up for less than what is due him.
The requirement that the employer post a cash or surety bond to perfect its/his
appeal is apparently 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
employers appeal. It was intended to discourage employers from using an appeal
to delay, or even evade, their obligation to satisfy their employees just and lawful
claims.42
In the case at bar, while the petitioners Appeal Memorandum and Motion for
Reduction of Bond, which was annexed thereto, were both filed on time,43 the
appeal was not perfected by reason of the late filing and deficiency of the amount
of the bond for the monetary award with no explanation offered for such delay and
inadequacy.
Exceptions are not present in this case. Examples: the Supreme Court has allowed
tardy appeals in judicious cases, e.g., where the presence of any justifying
circumstance recognized by law, such as fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence, properly vested the judge with discretion to approve or admit an appeal
filed out of time; where on equitable grounds, a belated appeal was allowed as the
questioned decision was served directly upon petitioner instead of her counsel of
record who at the time was already dead;45 where the counsel relied on the
footnote of the notice of the decision of the labor arbiter that the aggrieved party
may appeal . . . within ten (10) working days; in order to prevent a miscarriage of
justice or unjust enrichment such as where the tardy appeal is from a decision
granting separation pay which was already granted in an earlier final decision; or
where there are special circumstances in the case combined with its legal merits or
the amount and the issue involved.

Borja Estate vs. Ballad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Borja Estate vs. Ballad

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Borja Estate vs. Ballad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

152550 June 8, 2005

You might also like