McBurnie vs. Ganzon, 707 SCRA 646, October 17, 2013

G.R.Nos.178034&178117.October17,2013.
*
G.R.Nos.18698485.
ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE, petitioner, vs. EULALIO

GANZON, EGIMANAGERS, INC. and E. GANZON, INC.,
respondents.
Remedial Law Civil Procedure Motion for Reconsideration The

Supreme Court emphasizes that second and subsequent motions for
reconsiderationare,asageneralrule,prohibited.Section2,Rule52ofthe
Rules of Court provides that [n]o second motion for reconsideration of a
judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.At
the outset, the Court emphasizes that second and subsequent motions for
reconsideration are, as a general rule, prohibited. Section 2, Rule 52 of the
Rules of Court provides that [n]o second motion for reconsideration of a
judgmentorfinalresolutionbythesamepartyshallbeentertained.Therule
rests on the basic tenet of immutability of judgments. At some point, a
decisionbecomesfinalandexecutoryand,consequently,alllitigationsmust
cometoanend.Thegeneralrule,however,againstsecondandsubsequent
motions for reconsideration admits of settled exceptions. For one, the
presentInternalRulesoftheSupremeCourt,particularlySection3,Rule15
thereof, provides: Sec. 3. Second motion for reconsideration.The Court
shallnotentertainasecondmotionforreconsideration,andanyexceptionto
this rule can only be granted in the higher interest of justice by the
Courtenbanc upon a vote of at least twothirds of its actual membership.
Thereisreconsiderationinthehigherinterestofjusticewhentheassailed
decision is not only legally erroneous, but is likewise patently unjust
andpotentiallycapableofcausingunwarrantedandirremediableinjury
ordamagetotheparties.Asecondmotionforreconsiderationcanonlybe
entertained before the ruling sought to be reconsidered becomes final by
operationoflaworbytheCourtsdeclaration.
Same Same Appeal Bonds No motion to reduce bond shall be
entertainedexceptonmeritoriousgroundsanduponthepostingofa
_______________
*ENBANC.
647
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 647
McBurnievs.Ganzon
bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.We

emphasize that the crucial issue in this case concerns the sufficiency of the
appeal bond that was posted by the respondents. The present rule on the
matterisSection6,RuleVIofthe2011NLRCRulesofProcedure,which
wassubstantiallythesameprovisionineffectatthetimeoftherespondents
appealtotheNLRC,andwhichreads:RULEVIAPPEALSSec.6.BOND.
IncasethedecisionoftheLaborArbiterortheRegionalDirectorinvolves
amonetaryaward,anappealbytheemployermaybeperfectedonlyuponthe
postingofacashorsuretybond.Theappealbondshalleitherbeincashor
suretyinanamountequivalenttothemonetaryaward,exclusiveofdamages
andattorneysfees.xxxxNomotiontoreducebondshallbeentertained
except on meritorious grounds and upon the posting of a bond in a
reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award. The filing of the
motion to reduce bond without compliance with the requisites in the
preceding paragraph shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an
appeal.
Same Same Same Labor Law Time and again, the Supreme Court
has cautioned the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to give
Article 223 of the Labor Code, particularly the provisions requiring bonds
in appeals involving monetary awards, a liberal interpretation in line with
the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits.Time and
again, the Court has cautioned the NLRC to give Article 223 of the Labor
Code, particularly the provisions requiring bonds in appeals involving
monetaryawards,aliberalinterpretationinlinewiththedesiredobjectiveof
resolvingcontroversiesonthemerits.TheNLRCsfailuretotakeactionon
the motion to reduce the bond in the manner prescribed by law and
jurisprudence then cannot be countenanced. Although an appeal by parties
fromdecisionsthatareadversetotheirinterestsisneitheranaturalrightnor
a part of due process, it is an essential part of our judicial system. Courts
should proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the right to
appeal,butrather,ensurethateverypartyhastheamplestopportunityforthe
proper and just disposition of their cause, free from the constraints of
technicalities. Considering the mandate of labor tribunals, the principle
equallyappliestothem.
Labor Law Appeals Although the general rule provides that an
appeal in labor cases from a decision involving a monetary award may be
perfectedonlyuponthepostingofacashorsuretybond,the
648
648 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
McBurnievs.Ganzon
Courthasrelaxedthisrequirementundercertainexceptionalcircumstances
inordertoresolvecontroversiesontheirmerits.Althoughthegeneralrule
providesthatanappealinlaborcasesfromadecisioninvolvingamonetary
awardmaybeperfectedonlyuponthepostingofacashorsuretybond,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
preventionofmiscarriageofjusticeorofunjustenrichmentand(3)special
circumstancesofthecasecombinedwithitslegalmerits,andtheamountand
the issue involved. Guidelines that are applicable in the reduction of appeal
bonds were also explained in Nicol v. Footjoy Industrial Corporation, 528
SCRA 300 (2007). 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/orgoodfaithbypostingapartialbondduringthereglementaryperiod.
SameRemedialLawCivilProcedureAppealBondsTimeandagain,
the Supreme Court has explained that the bond requirement imposed upon
appellants in labor cases is intended to ensure the satisfaction of awards
that are made in favor of appellees, in the event that their claims are
eventuallysustainedbythecourts.AstheCourt,nonetheless,remainsfirm
ontheimportanceofappealbondsinappealsfrommonetaryawardsofLAs,
westressthattheNLRC,pursuanttoSection6,RuleVIoftheNLRCRules
ofProcedure,shallonlyacceptmotionstoreducebondthatarecoupledwith
the posting of a bond in a reasonable amount. Time and again, we have
explained that the bond requirement imposed upon appellants in labor cases
is intended to ensure the satisfaction of awards that are made in favor of
appellees, in the event that their claims are eventually sustained by the
courts.Onthepartoftheappellants,itspostingmayalsosignifytheirgood
faithandwillingnesstorecognizethefinaloutcomeoftheirappeal.
649
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 649
McBurnievs.Ganzon
Same Same Same Same In all cases, the reduction of the appeal
bond shall be justified by meritorious grounds and accompanied by the
posting of the required appeal bond in a reasonable amount.Inallcases,
the reduction of the appeal bond shall be justified by meritorious grounds
andaccompaniedbythepostingoftherequiredappealbondinareasonable
amount. The requirement on the existence of a meritorious ground delves
on the worth of the parties arguments, taking into account their respective
rights and the circumstances that attend the case. The condition was
emphasized in University Plans Incorporated v. Solano, 652 SCRA 492
(2011) wherein the Court held that while the NLRCs Revised Rules of
Procedure allows the [NLRC] to reduce the amount of the bond, the
exercise of the authority is not a matter of right on the part of the movant,
but lies within the sound discretion of the NLRC upon a showing of
meritoriousgrounds.Byjurisprudence,themeritreferredtomaypertainto
anappellantslackoffinancialcapabilitytopaythefullamountofthebond,
the merits of the main appeal such as when there is a valid claim that there
was no illegal dismissal to justify the award, the absence of an employer
employee relationship, prescription of claims, and other similarly valid
issues that are raised in the appeal. For the purpose of determining a
meritorious ground, the NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence,
orfrommakingapreliminarydeterminationofthemeritsoftheappellants
contentions.
Same Same Same Same Although the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) Rules of Procedure, particularly Section 6 of Rule VI
thereof, provides that the bond to be posted shall be in a reasonable
amount in relation to the monetary award, the merit of the motion shall
alwaystakeprecedenceinthedetermination.AlthoughtheNLRCRulesof
Procedure,particularlySection6ofRuleVIthereof,providesthatthebond
to be posted shall be in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary
award, the merit of the motion shall always take precedence in the
determination. Settled is the rule that procedural rules were conceived, and
should thus be applied in a manner that would only aid the attainment of
justice.Ifastringentapplicationoftheruleswouldhinderratherthanserve
thedemandsofsubstantialjustice,theformermustyieldtothelatter.
650
McBurnievs.Ganzon
Same Termination of Employment Illegal Dismissals Before a case

for illegal dismissal can prosper, an employeremployee relationship must
first be established.Before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an
employeremployee relationship must first be established. Although an
employment agreement forms part of the case records, respondent Ganzon
signeditwiththenotationpermynote.Therespondentshavesufficiently
explained that the note refers to the letter dated May 11, 1999 which
embodied certain conditions for the employments effectivity. As we have
previously explained, however, the said conditions, particularly on the
successfulcompletionoftheprojectfinancingforthehotelprojectinBaguio
City and McBurnies acquisition of an Alien Employment Permit, failed to
materialize.Suchdefenseoftherespondents,whichwasdulyconsideredby
the NLRC in its Decision dated November 17, 2009, was not sufficiently
rebuttedbyMcBurnie.
SameEmployerEmployeeRelationshipCriteriaintheDetermination
of an EmployerEmployee Relationship.Given the parties conflicting
claimsontheirtrueintentioninexecutingtheagreement,itwasnecessaryto
resort to the established criteria for the determination of an employer
employee relationship, namely: (1) the selection and engagement of the
employee(2)thepaymentofwages(3)thepowerofdismissaland(4)the
power to control the employees conduct. The rule of thumb remains: the
onusprobandifallsontheclaimanttoestablishorsubstantiatetheclaimby
the requisite quantum of evidence. Whoever claims entitlement to the
benefitsprovidedbylawshouldestablishhisorherrightthereto.McBurnie
failedinthisregard.AspreviouslyobservedbytheNLRC,McBurnieeven
failed to show through any document such as payslips or vouchers that his
salaries during the time that he allegedly worked for the respondents were
paid by the company. In the absence of an employeremployee relationship
between McBurnie and the respondents, McBurnie could not successfully
claim that he was dismissed, much less illegally dismissed, by the latter.
Even granting that there was such an employeremployee relationship, the
recordsarebarrenofanydocumentshowingthatitsterminationwasbythe
respondentsdismissalofMcBurnie.
MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION of the decision and

resolutionsoftheSupremeCourt.
651
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 651
McBurnievs.Ganzon
ThefactsarestatedintheresolutionoftheCourt.
ArnelZ.DolendoandLeonardR.Subielaforpetitioner.
TeodoroM.Jumamilforrespondents.
RESOLUTION
REYES,J.:
Forresolutionarethe
(1)third motion for reconsideration1 filed by Eulalio Ganzon
(Ganzon), EGIManagers, Inc. (EGI) and E. Ganzon, Inc.
(respondents)onMarch27,2012,seekingareconsiderationof
theCourtsDecision2datedSeptember18,2009thatordered
the dismissal of their appeal to the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) for failure to post additional appeal
bondintheamountofP54,083,910.00and
(2)motion for reconsideration3 filed by petitioner Andrew
James McBurnie (McBurnie) on September 26, 2012,
assailingtheCourtenbancsResolution4datedSeptember4,
2012 that (1) accepted the case from the Courts Third
Division and (2) enjoined the implementation of the Labor
Arbiters (LA) decision finding him to be illegally dismissed
bytherespondents.
_______________
1Rollo(G.R.Nos.18698485),pp.874909subjectoftheMotionforLeavetoFile
AttachedThirdMotionforReconsiderationdatedMarch27,2012,id.,atpp.867871.
2PennedbyAssociateJusticeConsueloYnaresSantiago(retired),withAssociate
JusticesMinitaV.ChicoNazario(retired),PresbiteroJ.Velasco,Jr.,AntonioEduardo
B.Nachura(retired)andDiosdadoM.Peralta,concurringid.,atpp.481493.
3Id.,atpp.9941010.
4Id.,atp.979.
652
McBurnievs.Ganzon
AntecedentFacts
The Decision dated September 18, 2009 provides the following

antecedentfactsandproceedings
OnOctober4,2002,McBurnie,anAustraliannational,instituted
acomplaintforillegaldismissalandothermonetaryclaimsagainst
therespondents.McBurnieclaimedthatonMay11,1999,hesigned
a fiveyear employment agreement5 with the company EGI as an
ExecutiveVicePresidentwhoshalloverseethemanagementofthe
companys hotels and resorts within the Philippines. He performed
workforthecompanyuntilsometimeinNovember1999,whenhe
figured in an accident that compelled him to go back to Australia
while recuperating from his injuries. While in Australia, he was
informed by respondent Ganzon that his services were no longer
neededbecausetheirintendedprojectwouldnolongerpushthrough.
The respondents opposed the complaint, contending that their
agreement with McBurnie was to jointly invest in and establish a
company for the management of hotels. They did not intend to
createanemployeremployeerelationship,andtheexecutionofthe
employment contract that was being invoked by McBurnie was
solelyforthepurposeofallowingMcBurnietoobtainanalienwork
permitinthePhilippines.AtthetimeMcBurnieleftforAustraliafor
hismedicaltreatment,hehadnotyetobtainedaworkpermit.
In a Decision6 dated September 30, 2004, the LA declared
McBurnieashavingbeenillegallydismissedfromemployment,and
thusentitledtoreceivefromtherespondentsthefollowingamounts:
(a)US$985,162.00assalaryandbenefitsfortheunexpiredtermof
their employment contract, (b) P2,000,000.00 as moral and
exemplarydamages,and(c)attorneysfeesequivalentto10%ofthe
totalmonetaryaward.
_______________
5Id.,atpp.165169.
6Id.,atpp.424435.
653
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 653
McBurnievs.Ganzon
Feelingaggrieved,therespondentsappealedtheLAsDecisionto
theNLRC.7OnNovember5,2004,theyfiledtheirMemorandumof
Appeal8andMotiontoReduceBond,9andpostedanappealbondin
the amount of P100,000.00. The respondents contended in their
MotiontoReduceBond,interalia,thatthemonetaryawardsofthe
LA were null and excessive, allegedly with the intention of
rendering them incapable of posting the necessary appeal bond.
They claimed that an award of more than P60 Million Pesos to a
single foreigner who had no work permit and who left the country
for good one month after the purported commencement of his
employmentwasapatentnullity.10Furthermore,theyclaimedthat
because of their business losses that may be attributed to an
economiccrisis,theylackedthecapacitytopaythebondofalmost
P60Million,oreventhemillionsofpesosinpremiumrequiredfor
suchbond.
On March 31, 2005, the NLRC denied11 the motion to reduce
bond, explaining that in cases involving monetary award, an
employerseekingtoappealthe[LAs]decisiontotheCommissionis
unconditionally required by Art. 223, Labor Code to post bond in
the amount equivalent to the monetary award x x x.12 Thus, the
NLRC required from the respondents the posting of an additional
bondintheamountofP54,083,910.00.
When their motion for reconsideration was denied,13 the
respondents decided to elevate the matter to the Court of Appeals
(CA)viathePetitionforCertiorariandProhibition(WithExtremely
UrgentPrayerfortheIssuanceofaPrelimi
_______________
7DocketedasNLRCNCRCANo.04291305.
8Rollo(G.R.Nos.178034and178117),pp.65106.
9Rollo(G.R.Nos.18698485),pp.216226.
10Id.,atp.216.
11Id.,atpp.267271.
12Id.,atp.269.
13Id.,atpp.324326.
654
McBurnievs.Ganzon
naryInjunctionand/orTemporaryRestrainingOrder)14docketedas
CAG.R.SPNo.90845.
In the meantime, in view of the respondents failure to post the
required additional bond, the NLRC dismissed their appeal in a
Resolution15 dated March 8, 2006. The respondents motion for
reconsideration was denied on June 30, 2006.16 This prompted the
respondents to file with the CA the Petition for Certiorari (With
Urgent Prayers for the Immediate Issuance of a Temporary
RestrainingOrderandaWritofPreliminaryInjunction)17docketed
asCAG.R.SPNo.95916,whichwaslaterconsolidatedwithCA
G.R.SPNo.90845.
CAG.R.SPNos.90845and95916
OnFebruary16,2007,theCAissuedaResolution18grantingthe
respondents application for a writ of preliminary injunction. It
directedtheNLRC,McBurnie,andallpersonsactingforandunder
their authority to refrain from causing the execution and
enforcementoftheLAsdecisioninfavorofMcBurnie,conditioned
upon the respondents posting of a bond in the amount of
P10,000,000.00.McBurniesoughtreconsiderationoftheissuanceof
thewritofpreliminaryinjunction,butthiswasdeniedbytheCAin
itsResolution19datedMay29,2007.
McBurnie then filed with the Court a Petition for Review on
Certiorari20 docketed as G.R. Nos. 178034 and 178117, assailing
theCAResolutionsthatgrantedtherespondentsapplicationforthe
injunctivewrit.OnJuly4,2007,theCourtdeniedthepetitiononthe
groundofMcBurniesfailureto
_______________
15Rollo(G.R.Nos.18698485),pp.328330.
16Id.,atpp.347350.
17Id.,atpp.88141.
19Id.,atpp.263265.
20Id.,atpp.2851.
655
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 655
McBurnievs.Ganzon
complywiththe2004RulesonNotarialPracticeandtosufficiently
show that the CA committed any reversible error.21 A motion for
reconsideration was denied with finality in a Resolution22 dated
October8,2007.
Unyielding, McBurnie filed a Motion for Leave (1) To File
Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration and (2) To Admit the
Attached Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration,23 which was
treated by the Court as a second motion for reconsideration, a
prohibitedpleadingunderSection2,Rule56oftheRulesofCourt.
Thus,themotionforleavewasdeniedbytheCourtinaResolution24
dated November 26, 2007. The Courts Resolution dated July 4,
2007 then became final and executory on November 13, 2007
accordingly,entryofjudgmentwasmadeinG.R.Nos.178034and
178117.25
Inthemeantime,theCAruledonthemeritsofCAG.R.SPNo.
90845 and CAG.R. SP No. 95916 and rendered its Decision26
datedOctober27,2008,allowingtherespondentsmotiontoreduce
appeal bond and directing the NLRC to give due course to their
appeal.ThedispositiveportionoftheCADecisionreads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition for

certiorariandprohibitiondocketedasCAGRSPNo.90845andthe
petition for certiorari docketed as CA GR SP No. 95916 are
GRANTED. Petitioners[] Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond is
GRANTED. Petitioners are hereby DIRECTED to post appeal bond
intheamountofP10,000,000.00.TheNLRCisherebyDIRECTED
togive
_______________
21Id.,atp.297.
22Id.,atp.320.
23Id.,atpp.322324.
24Id.,atpp.350351.
25Id.,atp.240.
26 Penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. RomillaLontok (retired), with Associate
JusticesMarianoC.DelCastillo(nowamemberofthisCourt)andPortiaAlioHormachuelos
(retired),concurringRollo(G.R.Nos.18698485),pp.4770.
656
McBurnievs.Ganzon
due course to petitioners appeal in CA GR SP No. 95916 which is

orderedremandedtotheNLRCforfurtherproceedings.
SOORDERED.27
Ontheissue28oftheNLRCsdenialoftherespondentsmotion
toreduceappealbond,theCAruledthattheNLRCcommittedgrave
abuse of discretion in immediately denying the motion without
fixinganappealbondinanamountthatwasreasonable,asitdenied
therespondentsoftheirrighttoappealfromthedecisionoftheLA9
The CA explained that (w)hile Art. 223 of the Labor Code
requiringbondequivalenttothemonetaryawardisexplicit,Section
6, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended,
recognized as exception a motion to reduce bond upon meritorious
grounds and upon posting of a bond in a reasonable amount in
relationtothemonetaryaward.30
On the issue31 of the NLRCs dismissal of the appeal on the
ground of the respondents failure to post the additional appeal
bond,theCAalsofoundgraveabuseofdiscretiononthepartofthe
NLRC, explaining that an appeal bond in the amount of
P54,083,910.00 was prohibitive and excessive. Moreover, the
appellatecourtcitedthependencyofthepetitionforcertiorariover
the denial of the motion to reduce bond, which should have
preventedtheNLRCfromimmediatelydismissingtherespondents
appeal.32
Undeterred,McBurniefiledamotionforreconsideration.Atthe
sametime,therespondentsmovedthattheappealberesolvedonthe
meritsbytheCA.OnMarch3,2009,theCA
_______________
27Id.,atp.70.
28SubjectofCAG.R.SPNo.90845.
29Rollo(G.R.Nos.18698485),p.67.
30Id.
31SubjectofCAG.R.SPNo.95916.
32Rollo(G.R.Nos.18698485),p.69.
657
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 657
McBurnievs.Ganzon
issued a Resolution33 denying both motions. McBurnie then filed

with the Court the Petition for Review on Certiorari34 docketed as
G.R.Nos.18698485.
Inthemeantime,theNLRC,actingontheCAsorderofremand,
accepted the appeal from the LAs decision, and in its Decision35
datedNovember17,2009,reversedandsetasidetheDecisionofthe
LA, and entered a new one dismissing McBurnies complaint. It
explainedthatbasedonrecords,McBurniewasneveranemployee
of any of the respondents, but a potential investor in a project that
included said respondents, barring a claim of dismissal, much less,
an illegal dismissal. Granting that there was a contract of
employment executed by the parties, McBurnie failed to obtain a
workpermitwhichwouldhaveallowedhimtoworkforanyofthe
respondents.36 In the absence of such permit, the employment
agreementwasvoidandthus,couldnotbethesourceofanyrightor
obligation.
CourtDecisiondatedSeptember18,2009
On September 18, 2009, the Third Division of this Court
rendered its Decision37 which reversed the CA Decision dated
October 27, 2008 and Resolution dated March 3, 2009. The
dispositiveportionreads:
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheDecisionofthe
Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP Nos. 90845 and 95916 dated
October 27, 2008 granting respondents Motion to Reduce Appeal
BondandorderingtheNationalLaborRelationsCommissiontogive
duecoursetorespondentsappeal,anditsMarch3,2009Resolution
denyingpetitionersmotionforreconsidera
_______________
33Id.,atpp.4445.
34Id.,atpp.336.
35Id.,atpp.640655.
36Id.,atp.655.
37Id.,atpp.481493.
658
McBurnievs.Ganzon
tion, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The March 8, 2006 and
June 30, 2006 Resolutions of the National Labor Relations
Commission in NLRC NCR CA NO. 04291305 dismissing
respondentsappealforfailuretoperfectanappealanddenyingtheir
motion for reconsideration, respectively, are REINSTATED and
AFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.38
TheCourtexplainedthattherespondentsfailuretopostabond
equivalent in amount to the LAs monetary award was fatal to the
appeal.39Althoughanappealbondmaybereduceduponmotionby
anemployer,thefollowingconditionsmustfirstbesatisfied:(1)the
motion to reduce bond shall be based on meritorious grounds and
(2)areasonableamountinrelationtothemonetaryawardisposted
bytheappellant.UnlesstheNLRCgrantsthemotiontoreducethe
cash bond within the 10day reglementary period to perfect an
appealfromajudgmentoftheLA,theemployerismandatedtopost
thecashorsuretybondsecuringthefullamountwithinthesaid10
day period.40 The respondents initial appeal bond of P100,000.00
wasgrosslyinadequatecomparedtotheLAsmonetaryaward.
The respondents first motion for reconsideration41 was denied
The respondents first motion for reconsideration41 was denied
bytheCourtforlackofmeritviaaResolution42datedDecember14,
2009.
Meanwhile,onthebasisoftheCourtsDecision,McBurniefiled
with the NLRC a motion for reconsideration with motion to recall
andexpungefromtherecordstheNLRCDecision
_______________
38Id.,atp.492.
39Id.,atp.490.
40Id.,atp.489.
41Id.,atpp.494546.
42Id.,atpp.595596.
659
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 659
McBurnievs.Ganzon
datedNovember17,2009.43ThemotionwasgrantedbytheNLRC
initsDecision44datedJanuary14,2010.45
Undauntedbythedenialoftheirfirstmotionforreconsideration
of the Decision dated September 18, 2009, the respondents filed
with the Court a Motion for Leave to Submit Attached Second
Motion for Reconsideration46 and Second Motion for
Reconsideration,47 which motion for leave was granted in a
Resolution48 dated March 15, 2010. McBurnie was allowed to
submit his comment on the second motion, and the respondents,
theirreplytothecomment.OnJanuary25,2012,however,theCourt
issuedaResolution49denyingthesecondmotionforlackofmerit,
consideringthatasecondmotionforreconsiderationisaprohibited
pleadingxxx.50
TheCourtsDecisiondatedSeptember18,2009becamefinaland
executoryonMarch14,2012.Thus,entryofjudgment51wasmade
induecourse,asfollows:
ENTRYOFJUDGMENT
This is to certify that on September 18, 2009 a decision rendered
in the aboveentitled cases was filed in this Office, the dispositive
partofwhichreadsasfollows:
_______________
43Id.,atp.657.
44Id.,atpp.657659.
45Id.,atp.659.ThedispositiveportionoftheNLRCDecisionreads:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, complainants Motion for Reconsideration is
hereby GRANTED. The Decision of the Commission, dated November 17, 2009, is SET
ASIDE.However,lettheDecisionoftheCommissionremainonfilewiththecaserecords.
SOORDERED.
46Id.,atpp.598601.
47Id.,atpp.602637.
48Id.,atpp.732733.
49Id.,atp.853.
50Id.
51Id.,atp.914.
660
McBurnievs.Ganzon
xxxx
and that the same has, on March 14, 2012 become final and
executory and is hereby recorded in the Book of Entries of
Judgments.52
TheEntryofJudgmentindicatedthatthesamewasmadeforthe
CourtsDecisionrenderedinG.R.Nos.18698485.
OnMarch27,2012,therespondentsfiledaMotionforLeaveto
File Attached Third Motion for Reconsideration, with an attached
Motion for Reconsideration (on the Honorable Courts 25 January
2012 Resolution) with Motion to Refer These Cases to the
HonorableCourtEnBanc.53Thethirdmotionforreconsiderationis
foundedonthefollowinggrounds:
I.
THE PREVIOUS 15 MARCH 2010 RESOLUTION OF THE
HONORABLECOURTACTUALLYGRANTEDRESPONDENTS
MOTIONFORLEAVETOSUBMITASECONDMOTIONFOR
RECONSIDERATION.
HENCE,RESPONDENTSRESPECTFULLYCONTENDTHAT
THESUBSEQUENT25JANUARY2012RESOLUTIONCANNOT
DENY THE SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON
THEGROUNDTHATITISAPROHIBITEDPLEADING.
MOREOVER, IT IS RESPECTFULLY CONTENDED THAT
THERE ARE VERY PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND
NUMEROUS IMPORTANT ISSUES IN THESE CASES THAT
CLEARLY JUSTIFY GIVING DUE COURSE TO
RESPONDENTS SECOND MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION,WHICHARE:
_______________
52Id.
53Id.,atpp.874909.
661
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 661
McBurnievs.Ganzon
II.
THE 10 MILLION PESOS BOND WHICH WAS POSTED IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE OCTOBER 27, 2008 DECISION OF
THECOURTOFAPPEALSISASUBSTANTIALANDSPECIAL
MERITORIOUS CIRCUMSTANCE TO MERIT
RECONSIDERATIONOFTHISAPPEAL.
III.
THE HONORABLE COURT HAS HELD IN NUMEROUS
LABOR CASES THAT WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE 223 OF
THE LABOR CODE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW
SHOULD BE GIVEN A LIBERAL INTERPRETATION,
ESPECIALLY IF THERE ARE SPECIAL MERITORIOUS
CIRCUMSTANCESANDISSUES.
IV.
THE [LAS] JUDGMENT WAS PATENTLY VOID SINCE IT
AWARDS MORE THAN [P]60 MILLION PESOS TO A SINGLE
FOREIGNER WHO HAD NO WORK PERMIT, AND NO
WORKINGVISA.
V.
PETITIONER MCBURNIE DID NOT IMPLEAD THE
NATIONALLABORRELATIONSCOMMISSION(NLRC)INHIS
APPEAL HEREIN, MAKING THE APPEAL INEFFECTIVE
AGAINSTTHENLRC.
VI.
NLRCHASDISMISSEDTHECOMPLAINTOFPETITIONER
MCBURNIEINITSNOVEMBER17,2009DECISION.
VII.
THE HONORABLE COURTS 18 SEPTEMBER 2009
DECISION WAS TAINTED WITH VERY SERIOUS
IRREGULARITIES.
662
McBurnievs.Ganzon
VIII.
GR NOS. 178034 AND 178117 HAVE BEEN
INADVERTENTLYINCLUDEDINTHISCASE.
IX.
THE HONORABLE COURT DID NOT DULY RULE UPON
THE OTHER VERY MERITORIOUS ARGUMENTS OF THE
RESPONDENTSWHICHAREASFOLLOWS:
(A)PETITIONER NEVER ATTENDED ANY OF ALL 14
HEARINGS BEFORE THE [LA] (WHEN 2 MISSED
HEARINGSMEANDISMISSAL)[.]
(B)PETITIONER REFERRED TO HIMSELF AS A
VICTIM OF LEISURE EXPERTS, INC., BUT NOT OF
ANYOFTHERESPONDENTS[.]
(C)PETITIONERS POSITIVE LETTER TO
RESPONDENT MR. EULALIO GANZON CLEARLY
SHOWS THAT HE WAS NOT ILLEGALLY DISMISSED
NOR EVEN DISMISSED BY ANY OF THE
RESPONDENTS AND PETITIONER EVEN PROMISED
TO PAY HIS DEBTS FOR ADVANCES MADE BY
RESPONDENT[S].
(D)PETITIONER WAS NEVER EMPLOYED BY ANY
OF THE RESPONDENTS. PETITIONER PRESENTED
WORK FOR CORONADO BEACH RESORT WHICH IS
[NEITHER] OWNED NOR CONNECTED WITH ANY OF
THERESPONDENTS.
(E)THE [LA] CONCLUDED THAT PETITIONER WAS
DISMISSED EVEN IF THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO
EVIDENCE AT ALL PRESENTED THAT PETITIONER
WASDISMISSEDBYTHERESPONDENTS[.]
663
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 663
McBurnievs.Ganzon
(F)PETITIONER LEFT THE PHILIPPINES FOR

AUSTRALIA JUST 2 MONTHS AFTER THE START OF
THE ALLEGED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, AND
HAS STILL NOT RETURNED TO THE PHILIPPINES AS
CONFIRMEDBYTHEBUREAUOFIMMIGRATION.
(G)PETITIONER COULD NOT HAVE SIGNED AND
PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE THE NLRC
ADMINISTERING OFFICER AS INDICATED IN THE
COMPLAINTSHEETSINCEHELEFTTHECOUNTRY3
YEARS BEFORE THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED AND
HENEVERCAMEBACK.54
OnSeptember4,2012,theCourtenbanc55issuedaResolution56
accepting the case from the Third Division. It also issued a
temporaryrestrainingorder(TRO)enjoiningtheimplementationof
the LAs Decision dated September 30, 2004. This prompted
McBurnies filing of a Motion for Reconsideration,57 where he
invokedthefactthattheCourtsDecisiondatedSeptember18,2009
hadbecomefinalandexecutory,withanentryofjudgmentalready
madebytheCourt.
OurRuling
In light of pertinent law and jurisprudence, and upon taking a
second hard look of the parties arguments and the records of the
case,theCourthasascertainedthatareconsiderationofthisCourts
Decision dated September 18, 2009 and Resolutions dated
December14,2009andJanuary25,2012,alongwiththeliftingof
theentryofjudgmentinG.R.No.18698485,isinorder.
_______________
54Id.,atpp.876878.
55Byavoteof12.
56Rollo(G.R.Nos.18698485),p.979.
57Id.,atpp.9941010.
664
McBurnievs.Ganzon
TheCourtsacceptanceofthe
thirdmotionforreconsideration
At the outset, the Court emphasizes that second and subsequent
motions for reconsideration are, as a general rule, prohibited.
Section2,Rule52oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthat[n]osecond
motionforreconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the
samepartyshallbeentertained.Therulerestsonthebasictenetof
immutability of judgments. At some point, a decision becomes
final and executory and, consequently, all litigations must come to
anend.58
The general rule, however, against second and subsequent
motions for reconsideration admits of settled exceptions. For one,
thepresentInternalRulesoftheSupremeCourt,particularlySection
3,Rule15thereof,provides:
Sec.3.Second motion for reconsideration.The Court shall

notentertainasecondmotionforreconsideration,andanyexception
tothisrulecanonlybegrantedinthehigherinterestofjusticeby
the Court en banc upon a vote of at least twothirds of its actual
membership. There is reconsideration in the higher interest of
justicewhen the assailed decision is not only legally erroneous,
butislikewisepatentlyunjustandpotentiallycapableofcausing
unwarrantedandirremediableinjuryordamagetotheparties.A
second motion for reconsideration can only be entertained before the
rulingsoughttobereconsideredbecomesfinalbyoperationoflawor
bytheCourtsdeclaration.
xxxx(Emphasisours)
In a line of cases, the Court has then entertained and granted

second motions for reconsideration in the higher interest of
substantial justice, as allowed under the Internal Rules when the
assaileddecisionislegallyerroneous,pat
_______________
58VerginesaSuarezv.Dilag,A.M.No.RTJ062014,August16,2011,655SCRA
454,459460.
665
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 665
McBurnievs.Ganzon
ently unjust and potentially capable of causing unwarranted and

irremediable injury or damage to the parties. In Tirazona v.
Philippine EDS TechnoService, Inc. (PET, Inc.),59 we also
explainedthatasecondmotionforreconsiderationmaybeallowed
ininstancesofextraordinarilypersuasivereasonsandonlyafteran
express leave shall have been obtained.60 In Apo Fruits
Corporationv.LandBankofthePhilippines,61weallowedasecond
motionforreconsiderationastheissueinvolvedthereinwasamatter
ofpublicinterest,asitpertainedtotheproperapplicationofabasic
constitutionallyguaranteed right in the governments
implementation of its agrarian reform program. In San Miguel
Corporationv.NLRC,62theCourtsetasidethedecisionsoftheLA
and the NLRC that favored claimantssecurity guards upon the
Courts review of San Miguel Corporations second motion for
reconsideration. In VirJen Shipping and Marine Services, Inc. v.
NLRC, et al.,63 the Court en banc reversed on a third motion for
reconsiderationtherulingoftheCourtsDivisiononthereinprivate
respondentsclaimforwagesandmonetarybenefits.
It is also recognized that in some instances, the prudent action
towardsajustresolutionofacaseisfortheCourttosuspendrules
ofprocedure,forthepowerofthisCourttosuspenditsownrules
or to except a particular case from its operations whenever the
purposes of justice require it, cannot be questioned.64 In De
Guzmanv.Sandiganbayan,65the
_______________
59G.R.No.169712,January20,2009,576SCRA625.
60Id.,atp.628,citingOrtigasandCompanyLimitedPartnershipv.Velasco,324
Phil.483,489254SCRA234,240(1996).
61G.R.No.164195,April5,2011,647SCRA207.
62256Phil.271173SCRA314(1989).
63210Phil.482125SCRA577(1983).
64DeGuzmanv.Sandiganbayan, 326 Phil. 182, 188 256 SCRA 171, 177 (1996),
citing Vda. De Ronquillo, et al. v. Marasigan, 115 Phil. 292 5 SCRA 304 (1962)
Piczonv.CourtofAppeals,268Phil.23190SCRA31(1990).
65326Phil.182256SCRA171(1996).
666
McBurnievs.Ganzon
Court,thus,explained:
[T]herulesofprocedureshouldbeviewedasmeretoolsdesignedto
facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application,
which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than
promote substantial justice, must always be avoided. Even the Rules
of Court envision this liberality. This power to suspend or even
disregard the rules can be so pervasive and encompassing so as to
altereventhatwhichthisCourtitselfhasalreadydeclaredtobefinal,
aswearenowcompelledtodointhiscase.xxx.
xxxx
The Rules of Court was conceived and promulgated to set forth
guidelinesinthedispensationofjusticebutnottobindandchainthe
handthatdispensesit,forotherwise,courtswillbemereslavestoor
robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. That is
precisely why courts in rendering real justice have always been, as
theyinfactoughttobe,conscientiouslyguidedbythenormthatwhen
on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive
rights,andnottheotherwayaround.Trulythen,technicalities,inthe
appropriate language of Justice Makalintal, should give way to the
realitiesofthesituation.xxx.66(Citationsomitted)
Consistent with the foregoing precepts, the Court has then

reconsidered even decisions that have attained finality, finding it
moreappropriatetoliftentriesofjudgmentsalreadymadeinthese
cases. In Navarro v. Executive Secretary,67 we reiterated the
pronouncement in De Guzman that the power to suspend or even
disregardrulesofprocedurecanbesopervasiveandcompellingas
toaltereventhatwhichthisCourtitselfhasalreadydeclaredfinal.
TheCourtthenrecalledinNavarroanentryofjudgmentafterithad
deter
_______________
66Id.,atpp.190191p.179.
67G.R.No.180050,April12,2011,648SCRA400.
667
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 667
McBurnievs.Ganzon
mined the validity and constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9355,

explainingthat:
Verily, the Court had, on several occasions, sanctioned the recall
of entries of judgment in light of attendant extraordinary
circumstances. The power to suspend or even disregard rules of
procedure can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that
which this Court itself had already declared final. In this case, the
compellingconcernisnotonlytoaffordthemovantsintervenorsthe
right to be heard since they would be adversely affected by the
judgment in this case despite not being original parties thereto, but
also to arrive at the correct interpretation of the provisions of the
[LocalGovernmentCode(LGC)]withrespecttothecreationoflocal
governmentunits.xxx.68(Citationsomitted)
In Muoz v. CA,69 the Court resolved to recall an entry of

judgmenttopreventamiscarriageofjustice.Thisjustificationwas
likewise applied in Tan Tiac Chiong v. Hon. Cosico,70 wherein the
Courtheldthat:
Therecallofentriesofjudgments,albeitrare,isnotanovelty.In
Muoz v. CA, where the case was elevated to this Court and a first
and second motion for reconsideration had been denied with finality,
the Court, in the interest of substantial justice, recalled the Entry of
Judgment as well as the letter of transmittal of the records to the
CourtofAppeals.71(Citationomitted)
InBarnesv.JudgePadilla,72weruled:
_______________
68Id.,atp.436.
69379Phil.809322SCRA741(2000).
70434Phil.753385SCRA509(2002).
71Id.,atp.762p.517.
72482Phil.903439SCRA675(2004).
668
McBurnievs.Ganzon
[A]finalandexecutoryjudgmentcannolongerbeattackedbyanyof
the parties or be modified, directly or indirectly, even by the highest
courtoftheland.
However, this Court has relaxed this rule in order to serve
substantial justice considering (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or
property,(b)theexistenceofspecialorcompellingcircumstances,(c)
themeritsofthecase,(d)acausenotentirelyattributabletothefault
ornegligenceofthepartyfavoredbythesuspensionoftherules,(e)a
lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and
dilatory, and (f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced
thereby.73(Citationsomitted)

As we shall explain, the instant case also qualifies as an
exception to, first, the proscription against second and subsequent
motionsforreconsideration,andsecond,theruleonimmutabilityof
judgments a reconsideration of the Decision dated September 18,
2009, along with the Resolutions dated December 14, 2009 and
January 25, 2012, is justified by the higher interest of substantial
justice.
To begin with, the Court agrees with the respondents that the
Courts prior resolve to grant, and not just merely note, in a
ResolutiondatedMarch15,2010therespondentsmotionforleave
tosubmittheirsecondmotionforreconsiderationalreadywarranted
aresolutionanddiscussionofthemotionforreconsiderationonits
merits.Insteadofdoingthis,however,theCourtissuedonJanuary
25,2012aResolution74denyingthemotiontoreconsiderforlackof
merit,merelycitingthatitwasaprohibitedpleadingunderSection
2, Rule 52 in relation to Section 4, Rule 56 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, as amended.75 In League of Cities of the
Philippines(LCP)v.CommissiononElections,76wereiterateda
_______________
73Id.,atp.915p.686.
74Rollo(G.R.Nos.18698485),p.853.
75Id.
76G.R.No.176951,February15,2011,643SCRA149.
669
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 669
McBurnievs.Ganzon
ruling that when a motion for leave to file and admit a second
motion for reconsideration is granted by the Court, the Court
thereforeallowsthefilingofthesecondmotionforreconsideration.
Insuchacase,thesecondmotionforreconsiderationisnolongera
prohibitedpleading.Similarlyinthiscase,therewasthennoreason
for the Court to still consider the respondents second motion for
reconsiderationasaprohibitedpleading,anddenyitplainlyonsuch
ground. The Court intends to remedy such error through this
resolution.
More importantly, the Court finds it appropriate to accept the
pending motion for reconsideration and resolve it on the merits in
ordertorectifyitspriordispositionofthemainissuesinthepetition.
Upon review, the Court is constrained to rule differently on the
petitions. We have determined the grave error in affirming the
NLRCs rulings, promoting results that are patently unjust for the
respondents, as we consider the facts of the case, pertinent law,
jurisprudence, and the degree of the injury and damage to the
respondents that will inevitably result from the implementation of
theCourtsDecisiondatedSeptember18,2009.
Theruleonappealbonds
We emphasize that the crucial issue in this case concerns the
sufficiency of the appeal bond that was posted by the respondents.
The present rule on the matter is Section 6, Rule VI of the 2011
NLRC Rules of Procedure, which was substantially the same
provision in effect at the time of the respondents appeal to the
NLRC,andwhichreads:
RULEVI
APPEALS
Sec.6.BOND.IncasethedecisionoftheLaborArbiterorthe
Regional Director involves a monetary award, an appeal by the
employermaybeperfectedonlyuponthepostingofacashorsurety
bond.Theappealbondshalleitherbeincashorsuretyinanamount
670
McBurnievs.Ganzon
equivalent to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and

attorneysfees.
xxxx
No motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on
meritorious grounds and upon the posting of a bond in a
reasonableamountinrelationtothemonetaryaward.
The filing of the motion to reduce bond without compliance with
therequisitesintheprecedingparagraphshallnotstoptherunningof
theperiodtoperfectanappeal.(Emphasissupplied)
While the CA, in this case, allowed an appeal bond in the

reduced amount of P10,000,000.00 and then ordered the cases
remand to the NLRC, this Courts Decision dated September 18,
2009providesotherwise,asitreadsinpart:
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
mandatoryrequisitefortheperfectionofanappealbytheemployeras
inferred from the provision that an appeal by the employer may be
perfectedonlyuponthepostingofacashorsuretybond.Theword
onlymakesitclearthatthepostingofacashorsuretybondbythe
employer is the essential and exclusive means by which an
employersappealmaybeperfected.xxx.
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. Noncompliance
therewith renders the decision of the Labor Arbiter final and
executory. This requirement is intended to assure the workers that if
theyprevailinthecase,theywillreceivethemoneyjudgmentintheir
favor upon the dismissal of the employers appeal. It is intended to
discourage employers from using an appeal to delay or evade their
obligationtosatisfytheiremployeesjustandlawfulclaims.
671
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 671
McBurnievs.Ganzon
xxxx
Thus, it behooves the Court to give utmost regard to the
legislativeandadministrativeintenttostrictlyrequiretheemployerto
postacashorsuretybondsecuringthefull amount of the monetary
award within the 10[]day reglementary period. Nothing in the
Labor Code or the NLRC Rules of Procedure authorizes the
posting of a bond that is less than the monetary award in the
judgment, or would deem such insufficient posting as sufficient
toperfecttheappeal.
Whilethebondmaybereduceduponmotionbytheemployer,this
is subject to the conditions that (1) the motion to reduce the bond
shall be based on meritorious grounds and (2) a reasonable
amountinrelationtothemonetaryawardispostedbytheappellant,
otherwise the filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the
running of the period to perfect an appeal. The qualification
effectivelyrequiresthatunlesstheNLRCgrantsthereductionofthe
cash bond within the 10[]day reglementary period, the employer is
still expected to post the cash or surety bond securing the full
amount within the said 10day period. If the NLRC does
eventually grant the motion for reduction after the reglementary
period has elapsed, the correct relief would be to reduce the cash or
surety bond already posted by the employer within the 10day
period.77(Emphasissuppliedunderscoringours)
Tobeginwith,theCourtrectifiesitspriorpronouncementthe
unqualifiedstatementthatevenanappellantwhoseeksareduction
of an appeal bond before the NLRC is expected to post a cash or
suretybondsecuringthefullamountofthejudgmentawardwithin
the10dayreglementaryperiodtoperfecttheappeal.
_______________
77Rollo(G.R.Nos.18698485),pp.487489.
672
McBurnievs.Ganzon
Thesuspensionoftheperiod
toperfecttheappealuponthe
filingofamotiontoreducebond
To clarify, the prevailing jurisprudence on the matter provides
thatthefilingofamotiontoreducebond,coupledwithcompliance
withthetwoconditions emphasized in Garcia v. KJ Commercial78
forthegrantofsuchmotion,namely,(1)ameritoriousground,and
(2) posting of a bond in a reasonable amount, shall suffice to
suspendtherunningoftheperiodtoperfectanappealfromthe
laborarbitersdecisiontotheNLRC.79Torequirethefullamount
of the bond within the 10day reglementary period would only
render nugatory the legal provisions which allow an appellant to
seekareductionofthebond.Thus,weexplainedinGarcia:
Thefilingofamotiontoreducebondandcompliancewiththe
two conditions stop the running of the period to perfect an
appeal.xxx
xxxx
The NLRC has full discretion to grant or deny the motion to
reducebond,anditmayruleonthemotionbeyondthe10dayperiod
withinwhichtoperfectanappeal.Obviously,atthetimeofthefiling
of the motion to reduce bond and posting of a bond in a reasonable
amount, there is no assurance whether the appellants motion is
indeedbasedonmeritoriousgroundandwhetherthebondheorshe
posted is of a reasonable amount. Thus, the appellant always runs
theriskoffailingtoperfectanappeal.
xxxInordertogivefulleffecttotheprovisionsonmotionto
reducebond,theappellantmustbeallowedtowaitfortheruling
of the NLRC on the motion even beyond the 10day period to
per
_______________
79Id.,atp.409.
673
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 673
McBurnievs.Ganzon
fectanappeal.IftheNLRCgrantsthemotionandrulesthatthereis
indeedmeritoriousgroundandthattheamountofthebondpostedis
reasonable, then the appeal is perfected. If the NLRC denies the
motion, the appellant may still file a motion for reconsideration as
provided under Section 15, Rule VII of the Rules. If the NLRC
grants the motion for reconsideration and rules that there is indeed
meritorious ground and that the amount of the bond posted is
reasonable, then the appeal is perfected. If the NLRC denies the
motion, then the decision of the labor arbiter becomes final and
executory.
xxxx
Inanycase,therulethatthefilingofamotiontoreducebond
shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal is
not absolute. The Court may relax the rule. In Intertranz
ContainerLines,Inc.v.Bautista,theCourtheld:
Jurisprudence tells us that in labor cases, an appeal from a
decisioninvolvingamonetaryawardmaybeperfectedonlyuponthe
postingofcashorsuretybond.TheCourt,however,hasrelaxedthis
requirement under certain exceptional circumstances in order to
resolve controversies on their merits. These circumstances include:
(1)fundamentalconsiderationofsubstantialjustice(2)preventionof
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.80 (Citations omitted and emphasis
ours)
AseriouserroroftheNLRCwasitsoutrightdenialofthemotion
to reduce the bond, without even considering the respondents
argumentsandtotallyunmindfuloftherulesandjurisprudencethat
allowthebondsreduction.Insteadofresolvingthemotiontoreduce
the bond on its merits, the NLRC insisted on an amount that was
equivalenttothemonetaryaward,merelyexplaining:
_______________
80Id.,atpp.409411.
674
McBurnievs.Ganzon
We are constrained to deny respondents[] motion for reduction.

As held by the Supreme Court in a recent case, in cases involving
monetary award, an employer seeking to appeal the Labor
ArbitersdecisiontotheCommissionisunconditionallyrequired
by Art. 223, Labor Code to post bond in the amount equivalent
to the monetary award (Calabash Garments vs. NLRC, G.R. No.
110827,August8,1996).xxx81(Emphasisours)
When the respondents sought to reconsider, the NLRC still

refused to fully decide on the motion. It refused to at least make a
preliminarydeterminationofthemeritsoftheappeal,asitheld:
We are constrained to dismiss respondents Motion for

Reconsideration. Respondents contention that the appeal bond is
excessiveandbasedonadecisionwhichisapatentnullityinvolve[s]
themeritsofthecase.xxx82
Prevailingrulesandjurisprudence
allowthereductionofappealbonds.
By such haste of the NLRC in peremptorily denying the
respondents motion without considering the respondents
arguments,iteffectivelydeniedtherespondentsoftheiropportunity
toseekareductionofthebondevenwhenthesameisallowedunder
therulesandsettledjurisprudence.ItwasequivalenttotheNLRCs
refusaltoexerciseitsdiscretion,asitrefusedtodetermineandrule
onashowingofmeritoriousgroundsandthereasonablenessofthe
bondtenderedunderthecircumstances.83Timeandagain,theCourt
has cautioned the NLRC to give Article 223 of the Labor Code,
particularly
_______________
81Rollo(G.R.Nos.18698485),p.244.
82Id.,atp.325.
83SeeNicolv.FootjoyIndustrialCorp.,555Phil.275,287528SCRA300,313
(2007).
675
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 675
McBurnievs.Ganzon
the provisions requiring bonds in appeals involving monetary

awards,aliberalinterpretationinlinewiththedesiredobjectiveof
resolvingcontroversiesonthemerits.84TheNLRCsfailuretotake
actiononthemotiontoreducethebondinthemannerprescribedby
law and jurisprudence then cannot be countenanced. Although an
appealbypartiesfromdecisionsthatareadversetotheirinterestsis
neitheranaturalrightnorapartofdueprocess,itisanessentialpart
ofourjudicialsystem.Courtsshouldproceedwithcautionsoasnot
todepriveapartyoftherighttoappeal,butrather,ensurethatevery
partyhastheamplestopportunityfortheproperandjustdisposition
of their cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.85
Considering the mandate of labor tribunals, the principle equally
appliestothem.
Given the circumstances of the case, the Courts affirmance in
the Decision dated September 18, 2009 of the NLRCs strict
application of the rule on appeal bonds then demands a re
examination. Again, the emerging trend in our jurisprudence is to
affordeverypartylitiganttheamplestopportunityfortheproperand
just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of
technicalities.86Section2,RuleIoftheNLRCRulesofProcedure
alsoprovidesthepolicythat[the]Rulesshallbeliberallyconstrued
tocarryouttheobjectivesoftheConstitution,theLaborCodeofthe
Philippinesandother
_______________
84Cosico,Jr.v.NLRC,338Phil.1080272SCRA583(1997),citingStarAngel
Handicraftv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.108914,September20,
1994,236SCRA580Dr.Postigov.Phil.TuberculosisSociety,Inc.,515Phil.601479
SCRA628(2006)Radav.NLRC,G.R.No.96078,January9,1992,205SCRA69,and
YBL (Your Bus Line) v. National Labor Relations Commission, 268 Phil. 169 190
SCRA160(1990).
85Bolosv.Bolos,G.R.No.186400,October20,2010,634SCRA429,439.
86Aujerov.PhilippineCommunicationsSatelliteCorporation,G.R.No.193484,
January 18, 2012, 663 SCRA 467, 481482, citing Heirs of the Deceased Spouses
Arcillav.Teodoro,G.R.No.162886,August11,2008,561SCRA545,557.
676
McBurnievs.Ganzon
relevant legislations, and to assist the parties in obtaining just,

expeditious and inexpensive resolution and settlement of labor
disputes.87
In accordance with the foregoing, although the general rule
provides that an appeal in labor cases from a decision involving a
monetaryawardmaybeperfectedonlyuponthepostingofacashor
surety bond, the Court has relaxed this requirement under certain
exceptionalcircumstancesinordertoresolvecontroversiesontheir
merits. These circumstances include: (1) the fundamental
considerationofsubstantialjustice(2)thepreventionofmiscarriage
ofjusticeorofunjustenrichmentand(3)specialcircumstancesof
the case combined with its legal merits, and the amount and the
issueinvolved.88 Guidelines that are applicable in the reduction of
appeal bonds were also explained in Nicol v. Footjoy Industrial
Corporation.89Thebondrequirementinappealsinvolvingmonetary
awardshasbeenandmayberelaxedinmeritoriouscases,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,attheveryleast,exhibitedtheirwillingnessand/orgood
faithbypostingapartialbondduringthereglementaryperiod.90
In Blancaflor v. NLRC,91 the Court also emphasized that while

In Blancaflor v. NLRC,91 the Court also emphasized that while
Article22392oftheLaborCode,asamendedbyRepublic
_______________
87Garciav.KJCommercial,supranote78,atp.410.
88IntertranzContainerLines,Inc.v.Bautista,G.R.No.187693,July13,2010,625
SCRA75,84,citingRosewoodProcessing,Inc.v.NLRC,352Phil.1013290SCRA
408(1998).
89555Phil.275528SCRA300(2007).
90Id.,atp.292p.318.
92Art.223.AppealDecisions,awards,orordersoftheLaborArbiterarefinal
andexecutoryunlessappealedtotheCommission
677
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 677
McBurnievs.Ganzon
Act No. 6715, which requires a cash or surety bond in an amount

equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from
maybeconsideredajurisdictionalrequirementfortheperfectionof
an appeal, nevertheless, adhering to the principle that substantial
justice is better served by allowing the appeal on the merits to be
threshed out by the NLRC, the foregoing requirement of the law
shouldbegivenaliberalinterpretation.
As the Court, nonetheless, remains firm on the importance of
appeal bonds in appeals from monetary awards of LAs, we stress
thattheNLRC,pursuanttoSection6,RuleVIoftheNLRCRules
of Procedure, shall only accept motions to reduce bond that are
coupled with the posting of a bond in a reasonable amount. Time
and again, we have explained that the bond requirement imposed
uponappellantsinlaborcasesisintendedtoensurethesatisfaction
ofawardsthataremadeinfavorofappellees,intheeventthattheir
claims are eventually sustained by the courts.93 On the part of the
appellants, its posting may also signify their good faith and
willingnesstorecognizethefinaloutcomeoftheirappeal.
At the time of a motion to reduce appeal bonds filing, the
question of what constitutes a reasonable amount of bond that
mustaccompanythemotionmaybesubjecttodiffering
_______________
byanyorbothpartieswithinten(10)calendardaysfromreceiptofsuchdecisions,
awards,ororders.xxx
Incaseofajudgmentinvolvingamonetaryaward,anappealbytheemployermay
be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable
bondingcompanydulyaccreditedbytheCommissionintheamountequivalenttothe
monetaryawardinthejudgmentappealedfrom.
xxxx
93 See Mindanao Times Corporation v. Confesor, G.R. No. 183417, February 5,
2010, 611 SCRA 748 Computer Innovations Center v. NLRC, 500 Phil. 573 462
SCRA183(2005)St.GothardDiscoPub&Restaurantv.NLRC, G.R. No. 102570,
February1,1993,218SCRA327.
678
McBurnievs.Ganzon
interpretations of litigants. The judgment of the NLRC which has

thediscretionunderthelawtodeterminesuchamountcannotasyet
be invoked by litigants until after their motions to reduce appeal
bondareaccepted.
Giventheselimitations,itisnotuncommonforapartytounduly
forfeithisopportunitytoseekareductionoftherequiredbondand
thus, to appeal, when the NLRC eventually disagrees with the
partys assessment. These have also resulted in the filing of
numerouspetitionsagainsttheNLRC,citinganallegedgraveabuse
of discretion on the part of the labor tribunal for its finding on the
sufficiencyorinsufficiencyofpostedappealbonds.
It is in this light that the Court finds it necessary to set a
parameterforthelitigantsandtheNLRCsguidanceontheamount
of bond that shall hereafter be filed with a motion for a bonds
reduction.ToensurethattheprovisionsofSection6,RuleVIofthe
NLRC Rules of Procedure that give parties the chance to seek a
reduction of the appeal bond are effectively carried out, without
howeverdefeatingthebenefitsofthebondrequirementinfavorofa
winninglitigant,allmotionstoreducebondthataretobefiledwith
theNLRCshallbeaccompaniedbythepostingofacashorsurety
bondequivalentto10%ofthemonetaryawardthatissubjectofthe
appeal,whichshallprovisionallybedeemedthereasonableamount
of the bond in the meantime that an appellants motion is pending
resolutionbytheCommission.InconformitywiththeNLRCRules,
the monetary award, for the purpose of computing the necessary
appealbond,shallexcludedamagesandattorneysfees.94Onlyafter
thepostingofabondinthere
_______________
942011NLRCRulesofProcedure,RuleVI,Section6reads:
SEC.6.BOND.In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Regional
Directorinvolvesamonetaryaward,anappealbytheemployermaybeperfectedonly
uponthepostingofabond,whichshalleitherbeintheformofcashdepositorsurety
bond equivalent in amount to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and
attorneysfees.
679
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 679
McBurnievs.Ganzon
quired percentage shall an appellants period to perfect an appeal

undertheNLRCRulesbedeemedsuspended.
The foregoing shall not be misconstrued to unduly hinder the
NLRCsexerciseofitsdiscretion,giventhatthepercentageofbond
thatissetbythisguidelineshallbemerelyprovisional.TheNLRC
retainsitsauthorityanddutytoresolvethemotionanddeterminethe
final amount of bond that shall be posted by the appellant, still in
accordance with the standards of meritorious grounds and
reasonable amount. Should the NLRC, after considering the
motionsmerit,determinethatagreateramountorthefullamountof
the bond needs to be posted by the appellant, then the party shall
complyaccordingly.Theappellantshallbegivenaperiodof10days
fromnoticeoftheNLRCorderwithinwhichtoperfecttheappealby
postingtherequiredappealbond.
Meritoriousgroundasacondition
forthereductionoftheappealbond
Inallcases,thereductionoftheappealbondshallbejustifiedby
meritoriousgroundsandaccompaniedbythepostingoftherequired
appealbondinareasonableamount.
The requirement on the existence of a meritorious ground
delves on the worth of the parties arguments, taking into account
their respective rights and the circumstances that attend the case.
The condition was emphasized in University Plans Incorporated v.
Solano,95 wherein the Court held that while the NLRCs Revised
RulesofProcedureallowsthe[NLRC]toreducetheamountofthe
bond,theexerciseoftheauthorityisnotamatterofrightonthepart
of the movant, but lies within the sound discretion of the NLRC
uponashowingofmeritoriousgrounds.96Byjurisprudence,the
_______________
95G.R.No.170416,June22,2011,652SCRA492.
96 Id., at pp. 503504, citing Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182626,
December4,2009,607SCRA752,765.
680
McBurnievs.Ganzon
merit referred to may pertain to an appellants lack of financial
capability to pay the full amount of the bond,97 the merits of the
main appeal such as when there is a valid claim that there was no
illegaldismissaltojustifytheaward,98theabsenceofanemployer
employee relationship,99 prescription of claims,100 and other
similarlyvalidissuesthatareraisedintheappeal.101Forthepurpose
ofdeterminingameritoriousground,theNLRCisnotprecluded
from receiving evidence, or from making a preliminary
determinationofthemeritsoftheappellantscontentions.102
In this case, the NLRC then should have considered the
respondentsargumentsinthememorandumonappealthatwasfiled
with the motion to reduce the requisite appeal bond. Although a
consideration of said arguments at that point would have been
merely preliminary and should not in any way bind the eventual
outcome of the appeal, it was apparent that the respondents
defensescamewithanindicationofmeritthatdeservedafullreview
ofthedecisionoftheLA.TheCA,byitsResolutiondatedFebruary
16, 2007, even found justified the issuance of a preliminary
injunction to enjoin the immediate execution of the LAs decision,
andthisCourt,atemporaryrestrainingorderonSeptember4,2012.
Significantly, following the CAs remand of the case to the
NLRC, the latter even rendered a Decision that contained findings
that are inconsistent with McBurnies claims. The NLRC reversed
and set aside the decision of the LA, and entered a new one
dismissingMcBurniescomplaint.Itex
_______________
97SeeNicolv.FootjoyIndustrialCorp.,supranote89.
98 See Semblante v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 196426, August 15, 2011, 655
SCRA444.
99Id.
100SeeStarAngelHandicraftv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,supranote
84.
101SeeYBL(YourBusLine)v.NLRC,supranote84.
102SeeUniversityPlansIncorporatedv.Solano,supranote 95 Nicol v. Footjoy
IndustrialCorp.,supranote89.
681
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 681
McBurnievs.Ganzon
plained that McBurnie was not an employee of the respondents

thus, they could not have dismissed him from employment. The
purported employment contract of the respondents with the
petitionerwasqualifiedbytheconditionssetforthinaletterdated
May11,1999,whichreads:
May11,1999
MR.ANDREWMCBURNIE
Re:EmploymentContract
DearAndrew,
It is understood that this Contract is made subject to the
understanding that it is effective only when the project financing for
ourBaguioHotelprojectpushedthrough.
TheagreementwithEGIManagers,Inc.ismadenowtosupportyour
need to facilitate your work permit with the Department of Labor in
viewoftheexpirationofyourcontractwithPanPacific.
Regards,
Sgd.
EulalioGanzon(p.203,Records)103
FortheNLRC,theemploymentagreementcouldnothavegiven
rise to an employeremployee relationship by reason of legal
impossibility.Thetwoconditionsthatformpartoftheiragreement,
namely, the successful completion of the project financing for the
hotelprojectinBaguioCityandMcBurniesacquisitionofanAlien
EmploymentPermit,remainedunsatisfied.104TheNLRCconcluded
that McBurnie was instead a potential investor in a project that
includedGanzon,butthesaidprojectfailedtopursueduetolackof
funds.Anyworkperformed by McBurnie in relation to the project
wasmerelypreliminarytothebusinessventureandpartofhisdue
diligencestudybeforepursuingtheproject,doneathisown
_______________
103Rollo(G.R.Nos.18698485),p.649.
104Id.,atp.650.
682
McBurnievs.Ganzon
instance, not in furtherance of the employment contract but for his

owninvestmentpurposes.105Lastly,theallegedemploymentofthe
petitionerwouldhavebeenvoidforbeingcontrarytolaw,sinceitis
undisputedthatMcBurniedidnothaveanyworkpermit.TheNLRC
declared:
Absent an employment permit, any employment relationship that

[McBurnie] contemplated with the [respondents] was void for being
contrary to law. A void or inexistent contract, in turn, has no force
and effect from the beginning as if it had never [been] entered into.
Thus, without an Alien Employment Permit, the Employment
Agreement is void and could not be the source of a right or
obligation. In support thereof, the DOLE issued a certification that
[McBurnie] has neither applied nor [been] issued [an] Alien
EmploymentPermit(p.204,Records).106
McBurnie moved to reconsider, citing the Courts Decision of

September 18, 2009 that reversed and set aside the CAs Decision
authorizingtheremand.AlthoughtheNLRCgrantedthemotionon
thesaidgroundviaaDecision107thatsetasidetheNLRCsDecision
dated November 17, 2009, the findings of the NLRC in the
November 17, 2009 decision merit consideration, especially since
thefindingsmadethereinaresupportedbythecaserecords.
Inadditiontotheapparentmeritoftherespondentsappeal,the
Court finds the reduction of the appeal bond justified by the
substantial amount of the LAs monetary award. Given its
considerableamount,wefindreasonintherespondentsclaimthat
torequireanappealbondinsuchamountcouldonlydeprivethemof
the right to appeal, even force them out of business and affect the
livelihoodoftheiremployees.108In
_______________
105Id.,atpp.650651.
106Id.,atp.654.
107Id.,atpp.640655.
108Id.,atpp.6465.
683
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 683
McBurnievs.Ganzon
Rosewood Processing, Inc. v. NLRC,109 we emphasized: Where a

decisionmaybemadetorestoninformedjudgmentratherthanrigid
rules, the equities of the case must be accorded their due weight
becauselabordeterminationsshouldnotbesecundumrationembut
alsosecundumcaritatem.110
Whatconstitutesareasonable
amountinthedeterminationof
thefinalamountofappealbond
As regards the requirement on the posting of a bond in a
reasonable amount, the Court holds that the final determination
thereof by the NLRC shall be based primarily on the merits of the
motionandthemainappeal.
AlthoughtheNLRCRulesofProcedure,particularlySection6of
RuleVIthereof,providesthatthebondtobepostedshallbeina
reasonableamountinrelationtothemonetaryaward,themeritof
the motion shall always take precedence in the determination.
Settledistherulethatproceduralruleswereconceived,andshould
thus be applied in a manner that would only aid the attainment of
justice. If a stringent application of the rules would hinder rather
thanservethedemandsofsubstantialjustice,theformermustyield
tothelatter.111
Thus, in Nicol where the appellant posted a bond of
P10,000,000.00 upon an appeal from the LAs award of
P51,956,314.00, the Court, instead of ruling right away on the
reasonableness of the bonds amount solely on the basis of the
judgment award, found it appropriate to remand the case to the
NLRC,whichshouldfirstdeterminethemeritsofthe
_______________
109352Phil.1013290SCRA408(1998).
110Id.,atp.1031p.423.
111CityofDumaguetev.PhilippinePortsAuthority,G.R.No.168973,August24,
2011,656SCRA102,117,citingBascov.CourtofAppeals,392Phil.251,266326
SCRA768,783(2000).
684
McBurnievs.Ganzon
motion.InUniversityPlans,112theCourtalsoreversedtheoutright
dismissalofanappealwherethebondpostedinajudgmentaward
of more than P30,000,000.00 was P30,000.00. The Court then
directedtheNLRCtofirstdeterminethemerit,orlackofmerit,of
the motion to reduce the bond, after the appellant therein claimed
that it was under receivership and thus, could not dispose of its
assets within a short notice. Clearly, the rule on the posting of an
appealbondshouldnotbeallowedtodefeatthesubstantiverightsof
theparties.113
Notably, in the present case, following the CAs rendition of its
Decision which allowed a reduced appeal bond, the respondents
havepostedabondintheamountofP10,000,000.00.InRosewood,
the Court deemed the posting of a surety bond of P50,000.00,
coupled with a motion to reduce the appeal bond, as substantial
compliance with the legal requirements for an appeal from a
P789,154.39 monetary award considering the clear merits which
appear,resipsaloquitor,intheappealfromthe[LAs]Decision,and
the petitioners substantial compliance with rules governing
appeals.114 The foregoing jurisprudence strongly indicate that in
determining the reasonable amount of appeal bonds, the Court
primarilyconsidersthemeritsofthemotionsandappeals.
Given the circumstances in this case and the merits of the
respondents arguments before the NLRC, the Court holds that the
respondents had posted a bond in a reasonable amount, and had
thuscompliedwiththerequirementsfortheperfectionofanappeal
fromtheLAsdecision.TheCAwascorrectinrulingthat:
InthecaseofNuevaEcijaIElectricCooperative,Inc.(NEECOI)
EmployeesAssociation,President
_______________
112Supranote95.
113Supranote98.
114Supranote109,atp.1031p.423.
685
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 685
McBurnievs.Ganzon
Rodolfo Jimenez[,] and members[,] Reynaldo Fajardo, et al. vs.

NLRC, Nueva Ecija I Electric Cooperative, Inc. (NEECO I) and
PatriciodelaPea(GRNo.116066,January24,2000),theSupreme
Court recognized that: the NLRC, in its Resolution No. 110191
dated November 7, 1991 deleted the phrase exclusive of moral and
exemplarydamagesaswellasattorneysfeesinthedeterminationof
theamountofbond,andprovidedasafeguardagainsttheimposition
of excessive bonds by providing that (T)he Commission may in
meritorious cases and upon motion of the appellant, reduce the
amountofthebond.
In the case of Cosico[,] Jr. vs. NLRC[,] 272 SCRA 583, it was
held:
Theunreasonableandexcessiveamountofbondwouldbe
oppressiveandunjustandwouldhavetheeffectofdeprivinga
partyofhisrighttoappeal.
xxxx
In dismissing outright the motion to reduce bond filed by
petitioners, NLRC abused its discretion. It should have fixed an
appeal bond in a reasonable amount. Said dismissal deprived
petitionersoftheirrighttoappealtheLaborArbitersdecision.
xxxx
NLRC Rules allow reduction of appeal bond on meritorious
grounds (Sec. 6, Rule VI, NLRC Rules of Procedure). This Court
finds the appeal bond in the amount of [P]54,083,910.00 prohibitive
and excessive, which constitutes a meritorious ground to allow a
motionforreductionthereof.115
The foregoing declaration of the Court requiring a bond in a

reasonableamount,takingintoaccountthemeritsofthemotionand
theappeal,isconsistentwiththeoftrepeated
_______________
115Rollo(G.R.Nos.18698485),pp.67,69.
686
McBurnievs.Ganzon
principlethatletterperfectrulesmustyieldtothebroaderinterestof
substantialjustice.116
Theeffectofadenialofthe
appealtotheNLRC
In finding merit in the respondents motion for reconsideration,
wealsotakeintoaccounttheunwarrantedresultsthatwillarisefrom
an implementation of the Courts Decision dated September 18,
2009.Weemphasize,moreover,thatalthougharemandandanorder
upon the NLRC to give due course to the appeal would have been
theusualcourseafterafindingthattheconditionsforthereduction
ofanappealbondweredulysatisfiedbytherespondents,givensuch
results, the Court finds it necessary to modify the CAs order of
remand, and instead rule on the dismissal of the complaint against
therespondents.
WithoutthereversaloftheCourtsDecisionandthedismissalof
thecomplaintagainsttherespondents,McBurniewouldbeallowed
toclaimbenefitsunderourlaborlawsdespitehisfailuretocomply
withasettledrequirementforforeignnationals.
Considering that McBurnie, an Australian, alleged illegal
dismissalandsoughttoclaimunderourlaborlaws,itwasnecessary
for him to establish, first and foremost, that he was qualified and
duly authorized to obtain employment within our jurisdiction. A
requirementforforeignerswhointendtoworkwithinthecountryis
anemploymentpermit,asprovidedunderArticle40,TitleIIofthe
LaborCodewhichreads:
Art.40.Employmentpermitfornonresidentaliens.Anyalien
seeking admission to the Philippines for employment purposes and
anydomesticorforeignemployerwhodesirestoengageanalienfor
employment
_______________
116Nicolv.FootjoyIndustrialCorp.,supranote89,atp.290p.316,citingRosewood
Processing,Inc.v.NLRC,supranote109.
687
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 687
McBurnievs.Ganzon
in the Philippines shall obtain an employment permit from the

DepartmentofLabor.
In WPP Marketing Communications, Inc. v. Galera,117 we held

thataforeignnationalsfailuretoseekanemploymentpermitprior
to employment poses a serious problem in seeking relief from the
Court.118 Thus, although the respondent therein appeared to have
beenillegallydismissedfromemployment,weexplained:
This is Galeras dilemma: Galera worked in the Philippines

without proper work permit but now wants to claim employees
benefitsunderPhilippinelaborlaws.
xxxx
Thelawandtherulesareconsistentinstatingthattheemployment
permit must be acquired prior to employment. The Labor Code
states: Any alien seeking admission to the Philippines for
employment purposes and any domestic or foreign employer who
desires to engage an alien for employment in the Philippines shall
obtainanemploymentpermitfromtheDepartmentofLabor.Section
4, Rule XIV, Book I of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
provides:
Employmentpermitrequiredforentry.No alien seeking
employment,whetherasaresident or nonresident, may enter
the Philippines without first securing an employment permit
fromtheMinistry.Ifanalienentersthecountryunderanon
workingvisaandwishestobeemployedthereafter,hemaybe
allowed to be employed upon presentation of a duly approved
employmentpermit.
Galera cannot come to this Court with unclean hands. To
grant Galeras prayer is to sanction the violation of the
Philippine labor laws requiring aliens to secure work permits
beforetheiremployment.We
_______________
117G.R.No.169207,March25,2010,616SCRA422.
118Id.,atpp.442443.
688
McBurnievs.Ganzon
holdthatthestatusquomustprevailinthepresentcaseandwe
leave the parties where they are. This ruling, however, does
not bar Galera from seeking relief from otherjurisdictions.119
(Citationsomittedandunderscoringours)
Clearly,thiscircumstanceonthefailureofMcBurnietoobtainan
employmentpermit,byitself,necessitatesthedismissalofhislabor
complaint.
Furthermore, as has been previously discussed, the NLRC has
ruledinitsDecisiondatedNovember17,2009ontheissueofillegal
dismissal.ItdeclaredthatMcBurniewasneveranemployeeofany
oftherespondents.120Itexplained:
All these facts and circumstances prove that [McBurnie] was
never an employee of Eulalio Ganzon or the [respondent]
companies, but a potential investor in a project with a group
including Eulalio Ganzon and Martinez but said project did not
takeoffbecauseoflackoffunds.
[McBurnie]furtherclaimsthatinconformitywiththeprovisionof
the employment contract pertaining to the obligation of the
[respondents]toprovidehousing,[respondents]assignedhimCondo
Unit#812oftheMakatiCinemaSquareCondominiumownedbythe
[respondents]. He was also allowed to use a Hyundai car. If it were
true that the contract of employment was for working visa purposes
only,whydidthe[respondents]performtheirobligationstohim?
Thereisnoquestionthat[respondents]assignedhimCondoUnit
#812oftheMCS,butthiswasnotfreeofcharge.Ifitweretruethat
itispartofthecompensationpackageasemployee,then[McBurnie]
wouldnotbeobligatedtopayanything,butclearly,headmittedinhis
letterthathehadtopayalltheexpensesincurredintheapartment.
_______________
119Id.
120Rollo(G.R.Nos.18698485),p.652.
689
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 689
McBurnievs.Ganzon
Assuming for the sake of argument that the employment contract

is valid between them, record shows that [McBurnie] worked from
September 1, 1999 until he met an accident on the last week of
October. During the period of employment, [the respondents] must
havepaidhissalariesinthesumofUS$26,000.00,moreorless.
However,[McBurnie]failedtopresentasingleevidencethat[the
respondents] paid his salaries like payslip, check or cash vouchers
dulysignedbyhimoranydocumentshowingproofofreceiptofhis
compensationfrom[therespondents]oractivityinfurtheranceofthe
employmentcontract.
Grantingagainthattherewasavalidcontractofemployment,itis
undisputed that on November 1, 1999, [McBurnie] left for Australia
andnevercameback.xxx.121(Emphasissupplied)
Although the NLRCs Decision dated November 17, 2009 was

setasideinaDecisiondatedJanuary14,2010,theCourtsresolveto
nowreconsideritsDecisiondatedSeptember18,2009andtoaffirm
the CAs Decision and Resolution in the respondents favor
effectively restores the NLRCs basis for rendering the Decision
datedNovember17,2009.
More importantly, the NLRCs findings on the contractual
relations between McBurnie and the respondents are supported by
therecords.
First, before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an
employeremployee relationship must first be established.122
Althoughanemploymentagreementformspartofthecaserecords,
respondentGanzonsigneditwiththenotationpermynote.123The
respondentshavesufficientlyexplainedthat
_______________
121Id.,atpp.652653.
122Lopezv.BodegaCity(VideoDiscoKitchenofthePhils.)and/orTorresYap,
558Phil.666,674532SCRA56,65(2007).
123Rollo(G.R.Nos.18698485),p.169.
690
McBurnievs.Ganzon
thenotereferstotheletter124datedMay11,1999whichembodied
certain conditions for the employments effectivity. As we have
previously explained, however, the said conditions, particularly on
the successful completion of the project financing for the hotel
project in Baguio City and McBurnies acquisition of an Alien
Employment Permit, failed to materialize. Such defense of the
respondents, which was duly considered by the NLRC in its
DecisiondatedNovember17,2009,wasnotsufficientlyrebuttedby
McBurnie.
Second, McBurnie failed to present any employment permit
which would have authorized him to obtain employment in the
Philippines. This circumstance negates McBurnies claim that he
had been performing work for the respondents by virtue of an
employeremployee relationship. The absence of the employment
permit instead bolsters the claim that the supposed employment of
McBurnie was merely simulated, or did not ensue due to the non
fulfillmentoftheconditionsthatweresetforthintheletterofMay
11,1999.
Third, besides the employment agreement, McBurnie failed to
presentothercompetentevidencetoprovehisclaimofanemployer
employeerelationship.Giventhepartiesconflictingclaimsontheir
trueintentioninexecutingtheagreement,itwasnecessarytoresort
to the established criteria for the determination of an employer
employeerelationship,namely:(1)theselectionandengagementof
theemployee(2)thepaymentofwages(3)thepowerofdismissal
and(4)thepowertocontroltheemployeesconduct.125Theruleof
thumbremains:theonusprobandifallsontheclaimanttoestablish
or substantiate the claim by the requisite quantum of evidence.
Whoeverclaimsentitlementtothebenefitsprovidedbylawshould
establishhisorherrightthereto.126McBurnie
_______________
124Supranote103.
125Javierv.FlyAceCorporation,G.R.No.192558,February15,2012,666SCRA
382.
126Id.,atpp.397398.
691
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 691
McBurnievs.Ganzon
failed in this regard. As previously observed by the NLRC,

McBurnie even failed to show through any document such as
payslips or vouchers that his salaries during the time that he
allegedlyworkedfortherespondentswerepaidbythecompany.In
the absence of an employeremployee relationship between
McBurnie and the respondents, McBurnie could not successfully
claim that he was dismissed, much less illegally dismissed, by the
latter. Even granting that there was such an employeremployee
relationship,therecordsarebarrenofanydocumentshowingthatits
terminationwasbytherespondentsdismissalofMcBurnie.
Giventhesecircumstances,itwouldbeacircuitousexercisefor
theCourttoremandthecasetotheNLRC,moresointheabsenceof
any showing that the NLRC should now rule differently on the
casesmerits.InMedlineManagement,Inc.v.Roslinda,127theCourt
ruledthatwhenthereisenoughbasisonwhichtheCourtmayrender
aproperevaluationofthemeritsofthecase,theCourtmaydispense
with the timeconsuming procedure of remanding a case to a labor
tribunal in order to prevent delays in the disposition of the case,
toservetheendsofjusticeandwhenaremandwouldserveno
purposesavetofurtherdelayitsdispositioncontrarytothespiritof
fairplay.128InRealv.SanguPhilippines,Inc.,129weagainruled:
With the foregoing, it is clear that the CA erred in affirming the

decision of the NLRC which dismissed petitioners complaint for
lackofjurisdiction.Incasessuchasthis,theCourtnormallyremands
thecasetotheNLRCanddirectsittoproperlydisposeofthecaseon
themerits.However,whenthereisenoughbasisonwhichaproper
evaluation of the merits of petitioners case may be had, the Court
maydispensewiththetimeconsumingprocedureofremandinorder
topreventfurtherdelaysin
_______________
127G.R.No.168715,September15,2010,630SCRA471.
128Id.,atp.486.
129G.R.No.168757,January19,2011,640SCRA67.
692
McBurnievs.Ganzon
the disposition of the case. It is already an accepted rule of

procedure for us to strive to settle the entire controversy in a single
proceeding, leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of litigation.
If,basedontherecords,thepleadings,andotherevidence,thedispute
can be resolved by us, we will do so to serve the ends of justice
instead of remanding the case to the lower court for further
proceedings.xxx.130(Citationsomitted)
ItbearsmentioningthatalthoughtheCourtresolvestograntthe
respondentsmotionforreconsideration,theothergroundsraisedin
themotion,especiallyastheypertaintoinsinuationsonirregularities
in the Court, deserve no merit for being founded on baseless
conclusions.Furthermore,theCourtfindsitunnecessarytodiscuss
the other grounds that are raised in the motion, considering the
groundsthatalreadyjustifythedismissalofMcBurniescomplaint.
Alltheseconsidered,theCourtalsoaffirmsitsResolutiondated
September 4, 2012 accordingly, McBurnies motion for
reconsiderationthereofisdenied.
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Court rules as
follows:
(a)ThemotionforreconsiderationfiledonSeptember26,2012
bypetitionerAndrewJamesMcBurnieisDENIED
(b)ThemotionforreconsiderationfiledonMarch27,2012by
respondents Eulalio Ganzon, EGIManagers, Inc. and E.
Ganzon,Inc.isGRANTED.
(c)The Entry of Judgment issued in G.R. Nos. 18698485 is
LIFTED. This Courts Decision dated September 18, 2009
and Resolutions dated December 14, 2009 and January 25,
2012 are SET ASIDE. The Court of Appeals Decision dated
October27,2008andResolutiondatedMarch3,2009inCA
G.R.SPNo.90845
_______________
130Id.,atpp.8990.
693
VOL.707,OCTOBER17,2013 693
McBurnievs.Ganzon
and CAG.R. SP No. 95916 are AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATION. In lieu of a remand of the case to the
National Labor Relations Commission, the complaint for
illegal dismissal filed by petitioner Andrew James McBurnie
againstrespondentsEulalioGanzon,EGIManagers,Inc.and
E.Ganzon,Inc.isDISMISSED.
Furthermore, on the matter of the filing and acceptance of
motionstoreduceappealbond,asprovidedinSection6,RuleVIof
the2011NLRCRulesofProcedure,theCourtherebyRESOLVES
thathenceforth,thefollowingguidelinesshallbeobserved:
(a)The filing of a motion to reduce appeal bond shall be
entertainedbytheNLRCsubjecttothefollowingconditions:
(1)thereismeritoriousgroundand(2)abondinareasonable
amountisposted
(b)Forpurposesofcompliancewithconditionno.(2),amotion
shallbeaccompaniedbythepostingofaprovisionalcashor
surety bond equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the
monetaryawardsubjectoftheappeal,exclusiveofdamages
andattorneysfees
(c)Compliance with the foregoing conditions shall suffice to
suspend the running of the 10day reglementary period to
perfect an appeal from the labor arbiters decision to the
NLRC
(d)The NLRC retains its authority and duty to resolve the
motiontoreducebondanddeterminethefinalamountofbond
thatshallbepostedbytheappellant,stillinaccordancewith
the standards of meritorious grounds and reasonable
amountand
(e)In the event that the NLRC denies the motion to reduce
bond, or requires a bond that exceeds the amount of the
provisionalbond,theappellantshallbegivenafreshperiodof
ten(10)daysfromnoticeofthe
694
McBurnievs.Ganzon
NLRCorderwithinwhichtoperfecttheappealbypostingthe
requiredappealbond.
SOORDERED.
Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Carpio, LeonardoDe Castro,

Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Villarama, Jr., Perez and Mendoza, JJ.,
concur.
Velasco,Jr.,J.,Nopart.
DelCastillo,J.,Onofficialleave.
Abad,J.,Onofficialleave.
PerlasBernabe,J.,Nopart.
Leonen,J.,Onofficialleave.
MotionforReconsiderationfiledonSeptember26,2012denied
Motion for Reconsideration filed on March 27, 2012 granted and
judgment dated September 18, 2009 and resolutions dated
December14,2009andJanuary25,2012setaside.
Notes.Nomotiontoreducebondshallbeentertainedexcepton
meritorious grounds, and only upon the posting of a bond in a
reasonableamountinrelationtothemonetaryaward.(TheHeritage
HotelManilavs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,598SCRA
127[2009])
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 National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC)Noncompliancewiththerequirementrendersthedecision
of the Labor Arbiter final and executory. (Ramirez vs. Court of
Appeals,607SCRA752[2009])
o0o
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

McBurnie vs. Ganzon, 707 SCRA 646, October 17, 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

McBurnie vs. Ganzon, 707 SCRA 646, October 17, 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

McBurnie vs. Ganzon, 707 SCRA 646, October 17, 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R.Nos.178034&178117.October17,2013.

ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE, petitioner, vs. EULALIO

Remedial Law Civil Procedure Motion for Reconsideration The

bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.We

Same Termination of Employment Illegal Dismissals Before a case

MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION of the decision and

The Decision dated September 18, 2009 provides the following

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition for

due course to petitioners appeal in CA GR SP No. 95916 which is

issued a Resolution33 denying both motions. McBurnie then filed

(F)PETITIONER LEFT THE PHILIPPINES FOR

Sec.3.Second motion for reconsideration.The Court shall

In a line of cases, the Court has then entertained and granted

ently unjust and potentially capable of causing unwarranted and

Consistent with the foregoing precepts, the Court has then

mined the validity and constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9355,

In Muoz v. CA,69 the Court resolved to recall an entry of

equivalent to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and

While the CA, in this case, allowed an appeal bond in the

The posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an

We are constrained to deny respondents[] motion for reduction.

When the respondents sought to reconsider, the NLRC still

We are constrained to dismiss respondents Motion for

the provisions requiring bonds in appeals involving monetary

relevant legislations, and to assist the parties in obtaining just,

In Blancaflor v. NLRC,91 the Court also emphasized that while

Act No. 6715, which requires a cash or surety bond in an amount

interpretations of litigants. The judgment of the NLRC which has

quired percentage shall an appellants period to perfect an appeal

plained that McBurnie was not an employee of the respondents

instance, not in furtherance of the employment contract but for his

Absent an employment permit, any employment relationship that

McBurnie moved to reconsider, citing the Courts Decision of

Rosewood Processing, Inc. v. NLRC,109 we emphasized: Where a

Rodolfo Jimenez[,] and members[,] Reynaldo Fajardo, et al. vs.

The foregoing declaration of the Court requiring a bond in a

in the Philippines shall obtain an employment permit from the

In WPP Marketing Communications, Inc. v. Galera,117 we held

This is Galeras dilemma: Galera worked in the Philippines

Assuming for the sake of argument that the employment contract

Although the NLRCs Decision dated November 17, 2009 was

failed in this regard. As previously observed by the NLRC,

With the foregoing, it is clear that the CA erred in affirming the

the disposition of the case. It is already an accepted rule of

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Carpio, LeonardoDe Castro,

You might also like