Title Buenabora v. Lim King Guan G.R. NO. 150147

TITLE G.R. NO.
150147
Buenabora v. Lim King Guan
PONENTE: Corona, J. DATE: January 20, 2004
DOCTRINE:
The provision of Article 223 (now 229) of the Labor Code requiring the posting of bond on
appeals involving monetary awards must be given liberal interpretation in line with the desired
objective of resolving controversies on the merits. If only to achieve substantial justice, strict
observance of the reglementary periods may be relaxed if warranted
FACTS:
Petitioners (Buenaobra et al) were employees of private respondent Unix International Export
Corporation (UNIX), a corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing bags, wallets and
the like.
Sometime in 1991 and 1992, petitioners filed several cases against UNIX and its incorporators
and officers for unfair labor practice, illegal lockout/dismissal, underpayment of wages, holiday
pay, proportionate 13th month pay, unpaid wages, interest, moral and exemplary damages and
attorneys fees.
Labor Arbiter Patis rendered a decision ordering respondent Unix Export Corporation to pay
complainants backwages, separation pay, wage differentials, regular holiday pay differentials;
and proportionate 13th month pay for 1990.
There being no appeal by respondents or petitioners, the decision of labor arbiter eventually
became final and executory. However, petitioners complained that the decision could not be
executed because UNIX allegedly diverted, invested and transferred all its money, assets and
properties to respondent Fuji Zipper Manufacturing Corporation (FUJI) whose stockholders and
officers were also those of UNIX.
Petitioners filed another complaint against respondents UNIX, its corporate officers and
stockholders of record, and FUJI. Petitioners mainly prayed that respondents UNIX and FUJI
be held jointly and severally held liable for the payment of the monetary awards ordered by
labor arbiter de Vera.
LA ruled that: Ordered a judgment of piercing the veil of corporate fiction of the two respondent
sister corporations which by virtue of this Decision are now considered as mere associations of
persons jointly and severally pay the subject amount of P8,233,880.30 out of the properties and
unpaid subscription on subscribed Capital Stock of the Board of Directors, Corporate Officers,
Incorporators and Stockholders of said respondent corporations, plus the amount of
P3,000,000.00 and P1,000,000.00 in the form of moral and exemplary damages, respectively, as
well as 10% attorneys fees from any recoverable amounts.
Respondent Contended that: Private respondents FUJI filed a memorandum on appeal and a
motion to dispense with the posting of a cash or surety appeal bond on the ground that they
were not the employers of petitioners. They alleged that they could not be held responsible for
petitioners claims and to require them to post the bond would be unjust and unfair, and not
sanctioned by law.
NLRC ruled that; NLRC denied respondent’s motion to be exempted from posting appeal bond.
Respondents are hereby directed to post cash or surety bond within an unextendible period of
ten (10) days upon receipt. Otherwise the appeal shall be dismissed.
Petitioners filed a petition in the Court of Appeals imputing grave abuse of discretion to the
NLRC, Third Division when it allowed private respondents to post the mandated cash or surety
bond four months after the filing of their memorandum on appeal.
COURT OF APPEALS ruled that: Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
ISSUE/S
Whether or not the posting of a bond beyond the reglementary period to perfect appeal may be
allowed
RULING
YES. The provision of Article 223 (now 229) of the Labor Code requiring the posting of bond on
appeals involving monetary awards must be given liberal interpretation in line with the desired
objective of resolving controversies on the merits. If only to achieve substantial justice, strict
observance of the reglementary periods may be relaxed if warranted. The NLRC, Third Division
could not be said to have abused its discretion in requiring the posting of bond after it denied
private respondents motion to be exempted therefrom.
It is true that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law
is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of making
the judgment final and executory. However, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the
way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties. We have
allowed appeals from the decisions of the labor arbiter to the NLRC, even if filed beyond the
reglementary period, in the interest of justice. The facts and circumstances of the instant case
warrant liberality considering the amount involved and the fact that petitioners already obtained
a favorable judgment on February 23, 1993 against their employer UNIX.
It is only fair and just that respondent FUJI be afforded the opportunity to be heard on appeal
before the NLRC, specially in the light of labor arbiter Patis later decision holding FUJI jointly
and severally liable with UNIX in the payment of the monetary awards adjudged by labor arbiter
de Vera against UNIX.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Wherefore, the petition is denied.
ROCHELLE

Title Buenabora v. Lim King Guan G.R. NO. 150147

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title Buenabora v. Lim King Guan G.R. NO. 150147

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

Title Buenabora v. Lim King Guan G.R. NO. 150147

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TITLE G.R. NO.

Buenabora v. Lim King Guan

PONENTE: Corona, J. DATE: January 20, 2004

Wherefore, the petition is denied.

You might also like