[G.R. No. 155207.

April 29, 2005]

WILHELMINA S. OROZCO, petitioner, vs. THE FIFTH DIVISION OF THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER, AND
LETICIA JIMENEZ MAGSANOC, respondents.
Facts:
Orozco penned the column Feminist Reflections which appeared in the Lifestyle
Section of the PDI, she submitted weekly columns with a per article wage of Two
Hundred Fifty Pesos (P250.00) which was later increased to Three hundred Pesos
(P300.00). Magsanoc wanted to improve the Lifestyle section and decided to cut
down a number of columnists and one of them was Orozco. The latters column
appeared for the last time on Nov. 7, 1992.
Aggrieved at the stoppage of her column, Orozco filed the instant case against
private respondents before the NLRC. The PDI raised as primary defense the claim
that Orozco was not an employee of the newspaper. The LA ruled in favor of Orozco.
The PDI, through counsel, received a copy of the Labor Arbiters Decision on 16
December 1993. It timely filed a Notice and Memorandum dated 24 December
1993, but it did not lodge a cash or surety bond in the amount equivalent to the
monetary award in the judgment appealed from. PDI adverted to such failure on its
part before the NLRC but justified the same on the ground that the Decision of the
Labor Arbiter did not fix any amount but merely stated that Orozco was entitled to
backwages. The CA reversed the decision of the NLRC and ruled that Orozco was
not an employee of PDI.
Orozco contends that a grievous error tantamount to grave abuse of discretion
was committed by the Court of Appeals when it failed to appreciate the observation
of the NLRC that private respondents did not perfect their appeal as they did not
deposit on time any cash or surety bond in compliance with the provision of Art. 223
of the Labor Code when they filed an appeal of the Labor Arbiters decision at the
NLRC. Failing to do so, the employer loses the right to appeal, and the Labor
Arbiters decision becomes final and executory.
Issue: Whether or not an appeal had indeed been perfected.
Held: The Court ruled in the affirmative.
The relevant portion of Article 223 states:
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. However, a
series of Court decisions provided for exceptions wherein the Court relaxed this
strict rule in line with the principle that substantial justice is better served by
allowing the appeal to be resolved on the merits rather than dismissing it based on
a technicality.
The judgment of the Labor Arbiter in this case merely stated that petitioner was
entitled to backwages, 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay without
however including a computation of the alleged amounts. Respondents cannot be
expected to post such appeal bond equivalent to the amount of the monetary award
when the amount thereof was not included in the decision of the labor arbiter. The
computation of the amount awarded to petitioner not having been clearly stated in
the decision of the labor arbiter, private respondents had no basis for determining

the amount of the bond to be posted.

[G.R. No. 122725. September 8, 1999]
BIOGENERICS MARKETING AND RESEARCH CORPORATION and WOLFGANG
ROEHR, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and
SERAFIN G. PANGANIBAN, respondents.
Facts:
Biogenerics through Roehr, employed respondent, Panganiban, as its President
and General Manger. However, after being informed that Panganiban was allegedly
trying to form a corporation in competition with Biogenerics, the latter dismissed
him from employment without prior notice. Panganiban then filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal, back wages, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and
attorneys fees. While Biogenerics contends that Panganiban was not dismissed but
he voluntarily resigned. LA ruled that the dismissal was illegal.
Biogenerics filed before the NLRC a Memorandum of Appeal and Motion to
Reduce Appeal Bond reiterating Panganibans voluntary resignation. In
strengthening their position to reduce the requisite appeal bond, petitioners argued
that considering that the authorized capital stock of the corporation was only
P2,000,000.00, an amount which was very much less than that awarded, posting
the entire amount of the bond would necessarily put the corporation in a serious
and precarious financial condition. Consequently, a cash bond of P50,000.00 only
was initially posted by petitioners.
NLRC, finding that petitioner corporation had no justification for a substantial
reduction of the bond, ordered petitioners to post an additional cash or surety bond
in the amount of P1,950,000.00 within a non-extendible period of 10 days from
receipt, with a warning that their failure to comply therewith would result in the
dismissal of the appeal. Biogenerics moved for reconsideration praying for further
reduction of the bond. NLRC denied the motion for reconsideration and disregarded
petitioners claim of serious business losses. It clarified that the bond required need
not be in cash for the law and the implementing rules allowed the posting of a bond
in the form of surety secured from reputable bonding insurance company. However,
as a gesture of liberality, instead of dismissing the appeal, the NLRC granted
petitioners another non-extendible period of five (5) days within which to post
additional bond.
Biogenerics filed an Irrevocable Bank Guarantee No. GTE MNL 940027 in the
amount of P1,950,000.00 as additional appeal bond which was entered into by and
between Biogenerics and HSBC.. NLRC rejected the Bank Guarantee as a substitute
for the bond holding that what is contemplated under Art. 223 of the Labor Code, as
amended, is a cash or surety bond, and in case of a surety bond, the same must be
issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission or the
Supreme Court as provided under Sec. 6 of Rule 6 of the New Rules of Procedure of
the NLRC.
Biogenerics through Ms. Carmen Rodriguez, Chairman of the Board and
estranged wife of Roehr, filed a cash bond of P1,940,240.00 plus a deposit fee of
P9,760.00 for a total amount of P1,950,000.00.
Later, Rodriguez moved to withdraw the cash bond alleging that she voluntarily
posted the cash bond on the mistaken belief that she had the obligation to post the
bond in behalf of her husband and she learned upon advice that it was the legal
duty of Biogenerics as appellant to post the necessary appeal bond.
In allowing the withdrawal of the bond, the NLRC relied on the provision of Sec.
6 of Rule 6 of the New Rules of Procedure which states that it is the employer who

should post the cash or surety bond. Petitioners were also directed for the last time
to post the requisite appeal bond within ten (10) days from notice with a final
warning that the non-posting of the bond would eventually cause the dismissal of
the appeal. Petitioners did not file a motion for reconsideration.
The NLRC issued the assailed resolution dismissing the appeal for petitioners
failure to post the required bond. Petitioners moved for reconsideration contending
that the NLRC should not have allowed Rodriguez to withdraw the cash bond
because the money used in the posting of the cash bond belonged to Roehr. Their
motion having been denied, petitioners sought the present recourse by imputing
grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC.
Issue: Whether an appeal was perfected from the decision of the LA
Held: The Court ruled in the negative.
According to the Court, since no appeal bond was posted by petitioners, no
appeal was perfected from the decision of the Labor Arbiter, for which reason the
decision sought to be appealed to the NLRC had in the meantime become final and
executory and therefore immutable.
It is clear 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.An
appeal may be perfected only upon the posting of cash or surety bond. It is not an
excuse that the over P2 million award is too much for a small business enterprise,
like the petitioner company, to shoulder. The law does not require its outright
payment, but only the posting of a bond to ensure that the award will be eventually
paid should the appeal fail. What petitioners have to pay is a moderate and
reasonable sum for the premium for such bond.
That the NLRC entertained the motion for reconsideration and even went to the
extent of further granting petitioners three (3) extensions, or a total of thirty (30)
days including the first extension, within which to post the appeal bond, indicated
its over-leniency to disregard the Labor Code as well as its own Rules to favor
petitioners. Worse, petitioners gravely abused the liberality extended by the Labor
Tribunal when they persistently failed and refused to post the bond despite the
extensions given them.
Finally, in an attempt to provide their petition a semblance of merit, petitioners
maintain that the NLRC should have not allowed Ms. Carmen Rodriguez to withdraw
the appeal bond as the money used for the purpose allegedly belonged to petitioner
Roehr. This last-ditch effort to thwart the claim of private respondent Panganiban
deserves scant consideration. Petitioners failed to substantiate this claim.
[G.R. No. 140294. May 9, 2005]
B. BMARY ABIGAILS FOOD SERVICES, INC., MARY RESURRECCION T. PUNO,
petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PERLA OLANDO, respondents.
Facts:
Mary Abigails Food Services, Inc. terminated petitioner Bolando's services as a
counter-girl due to excessive tardiness and falsification of time record. Contending
that her dismissal by reason of tardiness is unjust, harsh and unreasonable, and
that she was denied due process as she was not given an opportunity to be heard,
Bolando filed with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC-NCR a complaint for illegal

dismissal, payment of separation pay, overtime pay, holiday pay, etc., against
Abigails. Petitioner contended that Bolando was accorded full due process before
she was terminated and that there was basis in her dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint but ordered Mary Abigail's to pay
respondent separation pay and other benefits. Petitioners received, thru counsel,
their copy of the aforementioned decision of the Labor Arbiter on December 23,
1998. As such, the last day of the 10-day period for them to take an appeal
therefrom to the NLRC under the Labor Code would be on January 2, 1999. Because
January 2, 1999 was a Saturday, petitioners filed their Notice of Appeal and
Memorandum of Partial Appeal on the following business day, January 4, 1999, a
Monday, and subsequently posted a surety bond only on January 7, 1999. However,
the NLRC ruled that the required bond was posted three (3) days beyond the 10-day
reglementary period for perfecting an appeal and thus, it dismissed petitioners
appeal for failure to perfect the same within the reglementary period.
Petitioners moved for a reconsideration, contending that their late filing of the
required bond should not prejudice the perfection of their appeal considering the
timely filing of their Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Partial Appeal, and the
liberal interpretation given to the provisions of the Labor Code in the matter of
appeal bond in cases involving monetary awards, as in the instant case. Said motion
for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC.
Petitioners went to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari under Rule
65, maintaining that the NLRC should have relaxed the time-requirement for the
posting of appeal bond, additionally claiming that the long holiday (Christmas
season) which followed their receipt on December 23, 1998 of the Labor Arbiters
decision rendered the timely filing of the required bond impossible. The CA
dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC decision.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioners appeal with the NLRC was correctly dismissed for
failure to perfect the same by not posting the required bond within the
reglementary period provided for by law?
Held:
Petition is dismissed. The NLRC correctly dismissed petitioners appeal for failure
to perfect the same by not posting the required bond within the reglementary
period provided for by law.
Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended, pertinently provides that 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 the
receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. Such appeal may be entertained only
on the following grounds, one of which is in case of a judgment involving a
monetary award where 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.
On the other hand, Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC clearly
provides that the appeal shall be filed within the reglementary period as provided in
Section 1 of the 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 Section 5 of this
Rule; shall be accompanied by a 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 requisites aforestated
shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal.
It is clear both in the Labor Code and its implementing rules that an appeal to
the NLRC from any decision, award or order of the Labor Arbiter must have to be
made within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decision, award or order
with proof of payment of the required appeal bond accompanied by a memorandum
of appeal. And where, as here, 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.
The posting of a cash or surety bond is a requirement sine qua non for the
perfection of an appeal from the labor arbiters monetary award. Notably, the
perfection of an appeal within the period and in the manner prescribed by law is
jurisdictional and non-compliance with the requirements therefore is fatal and has
the effect of rendering the judgment sought to be appealed final and executory.
Such requirement cannot be trifled with.
Here, while it is true that petitioners seasonably filed their notice of appeal and
memorandum of partial appeal, they admittedly posted the required bond three (3)
days late. Hence, their appeal from the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC
was never perfected.
[G.R. No. 152494. September 22, 2004]
MARIANO ONG, doing business under the name and style MILESTONE
METAL MANUFACTURING, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS,
CONRADO DABAC, BERNABE TAYACTAC, MANUEL ABEJUELLA, LOLITO
ABELONG, RONNIE HERRERO, APOLLO PAMIAS, JAIME ONGUTAN, NOEL
ATENDIDO, CARLOS TABBAL, JOEL ATENDIDO, BIENVENIDO EBBER, RENATO
ABEJUELLA, LEONILO ATENDIDO, JR., LODULADO FAA and JAIME LOZADA,
respondents.
Facts:
Petitioner is the sole proprietor of Milestone Metal Manufacturing (Milestone).
Sometime in May 1998, the business suffered very low sales and productivity
because of the economic crisis in the country. Hence, it adopted a rotation scheme
by reducing the workdays of its employees to three days a week or less for an
indefinite period
The 15 respondents filed before the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) complaints for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-payment of
overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, damages,
and attorneys fees against petitioner. These complaints were consolidated.
Petitioner claimed that 9 of the 15 respondents were not employees of Milestone
but of Protone Industrial Corporation which, however, stopped its operation due to
business losses. Further, he claims that a number of respondents were not
dismissed from employment but they refused to work after the rotation scheme was
adopted. Anent their monetary claims, petitioner presented documents showing
that he paid respondents minimum wage, 13th month pay, holiday pay, and
contributions to the SSS, Medicare, and Pag-Ibig Funds.
The LA rendered a decision awarding to the respondents the aggregate amount
of P1,111,200.40 representing their wage differential, holiday pay, service incentive
leave pay and 13th month pay, plus 10% thereof as attorneys fees. Further,

petitioner was ordered to pay the respondents separation pay equivalent to month
salary for every year of service due to the indefiniteness of the rotation scheme and
strained relations caused by the filing of the complaints.
Petitioner filed with the NLRC a notice of appeal with a memorandum of appeal
and paid the docket fees therefor. However, instead of posting the required cash or
surety bond, he filed a motion to reduce the appeal bond. The NLRC denied the
motion to reduce bond and dismissed the appeal for failure to post cash or surety
bond within the reglementary period.Petitioners motion for reconsideration was also
denied. CA likewise dismissed petitioners appeal for lack of merit.
Issue: Whether the appeal was perfected when the petitioner filed a motion to
reduce the appeal bond
Held: The Court ruled in the negative.
Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended, sets forth the rules on appeal from
the Labor Arbiters monetary award:
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. x x x.
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.
In the case at bar, petitioner received the decision of the Labor Arbiter on
January 6, 2000. He filed his notice of appeal with memorandum of appeal and paid
the corresponding appeal fees on January 17, 2000, the last day of filing the appeal.
However, in lieu of the required cash or surety bond, he filed a motion to reduce
bond alleging that the amount of P1,427,802,04 as bond is unjustified and
prohibitive and prayed that the same be reduced to a reasonable level. The NLRC
denied the motion and consequently dismissed the appeal for non-perfection.
Petitioner now contends that he was deprived of the chance to post bond because
the NLRC took 102 days to decide his motion.
In a a case decided by this Court, it ruled that a substantial monetary award,
even if it runs into millions, does not necessarily give the employer-appellant a
meritorious case and does not automatically warrant a reduction of the appeal
bond.
Even granting arguendo that petitioner has meritorious grounds to reduce the
appeal bond, the result would have been the same since he failed to post cash or
surety bond within the prescribed period.
The fact that the NLRC took 102 days to resolve the motion will not help
petitioners case. The NLRC Rules clearly provide that the filing of the motion to
reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect appeal. Petitioner
should have seasonably filed the appeal bond within the ten-day reglementary
period following the receipt of the order, resolution or decision of the NLRC to
forestall the finality of such order, resolution or decision. In the alternative, he
should have paid only a moderate and reasonable sum for the premium.
In the case at bar, petitioner did not post a full or partial appeal bond within the
prescribed period, thus, no appeal was perfected from the decision of the Labor
Arbiter.
[G.R. Nos. 116476-84. May 21, 1998]
ROSEWOOD PROCESSING, INC., petitioner,

vs.

NATIONAL

LABOR

RELATIONSCOMMISSION, NAPOLEON C. MAMON, ARSENIO GAZZINGAN,

ROMEO C. VELASCO, ARMANDO L. BALLON, VICTOR E. ALDEZA, JOSE L.
CABRERA, VETERANS PHILIPPINE SCOUT SECURITY AGENCY, and/or ENGR.
SERGIO JAMILA IV, respondents.
Facts:
All the complainants were employed by the security agency as security guards:
Napoleon Mamon on October 7, 1989; Arsenio Gazzingan on September 25, 1988;
Rodolfo C. Velasco on January 5, 1987; Armando Ballon on June 28, 1990; Victor
Aldeza on March 21, 1990; and Jose L. Cabrera [in] January 1988.
Mamon: first he was not paid because the security agency claims that he is only
an OJT. Next, he was transferred to several companies but he was under paid. One
time, he was not laid because the payroll was missing. He went back several times
but he later give up because he spends more for transpo than what he is supposed
to gain. He filed a case against the company but he was asked to sign a quitclaim
otherwise he shall be terminated. He refused to sign hence he was not given an
assignment and told by his superior to resign.
Gazzingan: he was assigned in Laguna, Bulacan then Canlubang. He asked that
he be transferred in Manila. Instead he was transferred in Batangas. Another
request for transfer to Manile was made however, instead of being transferred, he
was not given any assignments.
Velasco: assigned from one company to another. Works for12 hours, underpaid.
Suspended with no cause at all.
Ballon: he applied for sick leave as per doctors advice, but it was crumpled by
the HR Manager because of the previous complaint filed.
Cabrera: assigned to several companies. He was stabbed by his commander.
After being discharged from the hospital, he was fit to work but he was not given
any assignment.
Aldeza: worked for 12 hours a day in several companies successively. Filed for
complaint (underpayment of wages) he was asked to resign because he would no
longer be given any assignment because of the complaint he filed.
On May 13, 1991, a complaint for illegal dismissal; underpayment of wages; and
for nonpayment of overtime pay, legal holiday pay, premium pay for holiday and
rest day, thirteenth month pay, cash bond deposit, unpaid wages and damages was
filed against Veterans Philippine Scout Security Agency and/or Sergio Jamila IV
(collectively referred to as the security agency, for brevity). Thereafter, petitioner
was impleaded as a third-party respondent by the security agency. In due course,
Labor Arbiter Ricardo C. Nora rendered a consolidated Decision ordering to pay
jointly and severally complainants.
The appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed by the NLRC for failure of the
petitioner to file the required appeal bond within the reglementary period. MR was
likewise denied.
Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the respondents
and their agents from implementing and enforcing the assailed Resolution and
Order until further notice.
Issues: 1.) Whether the appeal from the labor arbiter to the NLRC was perfected on
time
2.) Whether petitioner is solidarily liable with the security agency for the
payment of back wages, wage differential and separation pay.
Held:

1) Appeal. The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period and in the
manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional, and noncompliance with such legal
requirement is fatal and effectively renders the judgment final and executory.[9] The
Labor Code 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.
Indisputable is the legal doctrine that the appeal of a decision involving a
monetary award in labor cases may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash
or surety bond.[10] The lawmakers intended the posting of the bond to be an
indispensable requirement to perfect an employers appeal.
The solicitor general argues for the affirmation of the assailed Resolution for the
sole reason that the appeal bond, even if it was filed on time, was defective, as it
was not in an amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed
from. The Court disagrees.
Petitioner claims to have received the labor arbiters Decision on April 6, 1993.
On April 16, 1993, it filed, together with its memorandum on appeal and notice of
appeal, a motion to reduce the appeal bond accompanied by a surety bond for fifty
thousand pesos issued by Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. Ignoring
petitioners motion (to reduce bond), Respondent Commission rendered its assailed
Resolution dismissing the appeal due to the late filing of the appeal bond. We hold
that petitioners motion to reduce the bond is a substantial compliance with the
Labor Code. This holding is consistent with the norm that letter-perfect rules must
yield to the broader interest of substantial justice.
2) Liability of Rosewood as indirect employer. The indirect employers liability to
the contractors employees extends only to the period during which they were
working for the petitioner, and the fact that they were reassigned to another
principal necessarily ends such responsibility. The principal is made liable to his
indirect employees, because it can protect itself from irresponsible contractors by
withholding such sums and paying them directly to the employees or by requiring a
bond from the contractor or subcontractor for this purpose.
These provisions cannot apply to petitioner, considering that the complainants
were no longer working for or assigned to it when they were illegally dismissed.
Furthermore, an order to pay back wages and separation pay is invested with a
punitive character, such that an indirect employer should not be made liable
without a finding that it had committed or conspired in the illegal dismissal.