Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50649:gr-159026-2008&amp;catid=1502&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:32:55+00:00

Document:
MARDY CABIGO, MARIANO CABIGO, JORGE CABIGO, RAMONA CABIGO, RODOLFO VALDEZ, DEONELA VALDEZ, LYDIA TALIBONG**, GERMAN TALIBONG,*** EFREN MALUNES, DELMA ENRIQUEZ, REGIE ENRIQUEZ, LUCIA GERVACIO, ROGELIO GERVACIO, EDWIN ESPARAS, CONRADO ESPARAS, BERNALDA ALCANTARA, RONALDO ALCANTARA, RENALDO SENADRE,**** ANGELO SENADRE,***** JOSE ANTARAN, MORITA ANTARAN, JOHNNY ANTARAN, JOEMARIE ANTARAN, SENADOR TALIDONG, JONELSON TALIDONG, ANIOLINA OCSEN, RONITO LASQUETO, LORETO LASQUETO, BELCESAN LASQUETO, FELIZARDO DELOS REYES, AURELIO DELOS REYES, ORLANDO PADOL, PRECY CABAHOG, EMILIO CABAHOG, EDEN MALUNES, CARMELO ESMERALDA, DOLORES FLORES, RENATO FLORES, ELADIO ALCANTARA, INOCENCIO BERNAIZ, and RONILO LASQUETO, private Respondents.
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the October 30, 2002 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the September 21, 2001 Order2 of the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (public respondent), and the May 22, 2003 CA Resolution3 which denied the motion for reconsideration.
You are required to affect [sic] restitution and/or correction of the foregoing at the company or plant level within ten (10) calendar days from notice hereof.
Any question of the above findings should be submitted to this Office within five (5) working days from notice hereof otherwise order of compliance shall be issued.
This notice shall be posted conspicuously in the premises of the workplace, removal of which shall subject the establishment to a fine and/ or contempt proceedings.
NOW, THEREFORE, you are hereby commanded to proceed to the premises of HAD. VALENTIN/BALABAG, MS. ALBERTA YANSON located at Brgy. Graneda or at Burgos St., Bacolod City and require the respondent to comply with the Order and pay the amount of THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY-TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR (P372,444.00).
You are to collect the above-stated amount from the respondent and deposit the same to the Cashier of this Office for appropriate disposition to herein workers and/;or the supervision of the Office of the Regional Director. Otherwise, you are to execute this Writ by attaching the goods and chattel of the respondent not exempt from execution or in case of insufficiency thereof, against the real or immovable property.
You are further ordered to collect the Execution and/or Sheriff Fee in the amount of TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-SEVEN (P2,127.00) PESOS.
On February 17, 1999, petitioner filed with DOLE Bacolod a Double Verified Special Appearance to Oppose "Writ of Execution" For Being a Blatant and Dangerous Violation of Due Process,13 claiming that she did not receive any form of communication, or participate in any proceeding relative to the subject matter of the writ of execution. Petitioner also impugned the validity of the August 12, 1998 Compliance Order subject of the writ of execution on the ground of lack of employment relationship between her and private respondents. DOLE Bacolod denied said motion in an Order14 dated March 11, 1999.
Petitioner filed with public respondent a Verified Appeal15 and Supplement to the Verified Appeal,16 posting therewith an appeal bond of P1,000.00 in money order and attaching thereto a Motion to be Allowed to Post Minimal Bond with Motion for Reduction of Bond.17 Public respondent dismissed her appeal in an Order18 dated September 21, 2001.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari19 which was denied due course and dismissed by the CA in its assailed October 30, 2002 Decision. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied.
II. The Honorable Labor Secretary in his assailed Decision, with all due respect, for some rather mysterious reason or the other, dismissed the appeal with utter disregard of the fact that her Regional Director, whose orders were appealed to her were never received by the Petitioner.
Art. 128. Visitorial and Enforcement Power. - x x x (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary, and in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists, the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to issue compliance orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of this Code and other labor legislation based on the findings of labor employment and enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection. The Secretary or his duly authorized representatives shall issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their orders, except in cases where the employer contests the findings of the labor employment and enforcement officer and raises issues supported by documentary proofs which were not considered in the course of inspection.
Petitioner contends that the CA and public respondent denied her the right to appeal when they rejected her P1,000.00-appeal bond. She insists that her appeal bond cannot be based on the monetary award of P372,444.00 granted by DOLE Bacolod in its August 14, 1998 Order which, having been rendered without prior notice to her, was a patent nullity and completely without effect.26 She argues that her appeal bond should instead be based on her capacity to pay; otherwise, her right to free access to the courts as guaranteed under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution would be set to naught merely because of her diminished financial capacity.
Our sympathy for petitioner cannot override our fidelity to the law.
Just like the petitioner in the present case, the employer in Guico v. Secretary of Labor had also sought a reduction of the appeal bond due to financial losses arising from the shutdown of his business; yet, we did not temper the strict requirement of Article 128 (b) for him. The rationale behind the stringency of such requirement is that the employer-appellant may choose between a cash bond and a surety bond. Hence, limitations in his liquidity should pose no obstacle to his perfecting an appeal by posting a mere surety bond.
Moreover, Article 128(b) deliberately employed the word "only" in reference to the requirements for perfection of an appeal in labor standards cases. "Only" commands a restrictive application,29 giving no room for modification of said requirements.
Section 6. Bond. - In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter, the Regional Director or his duly authorized Hearing Officer involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer shall be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond, which shall be in effect until final disposition of the case, issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission or the Supreme Court in an amount equivalent to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and attorney's fees.
The employer, his counsel, as well as the bonding company, shall submit a joint declaration under oath attesting that the surety bond posted is genuine.
Section 8. Appeal. - (a) The Order of the Regional Director shall be final and executory unless appealed to the Secretary within ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof.
(b) The appeal shall be filed with the Regional Office where the case originated together with the memorandum of the appealing party. The appellee may file his answer within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the appellants memorandum.
Section 9. Cash or surety bond; when required. - In case the order involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a duly accredited bonding company. The bond should be in the amount equivalent to the monetary award indicated in the order.
Section 10. Writ of execution. - (a) If no appeal is perfected within the reglementary period, the Regional Director shall, motu propio or upon motion of any interested party, issue a writ of execution to enforce the order. In the enforcement of the writ, the assistance of the law enforcement authorities may be sought.
Under the foregoing Implementing Rules, it is plain that public respondent has no authority to accept an appeal under a reduced bond.
Further applying the Implementing Rules, there is one other reason for holding that petitioner failed to perfect her appeal. It is of record that she received the August 12, 1998 Compliance Order issued by DOLE-Bacolod, as indicated in the registry return card marked Annex "I".33 Petitioner does not question this, except to point out that the registry return card does not indicate the date she received the order. That is of no consequence, for the fact remains that petitioner was put on actual notice not only of the existence of the August 12, 1998 Compliance Order but also of the summary investigation of her establishment. It behooves her to file a timely appeal to public respondent34 or object to the conduct of the investigation.35 Petitioner did neither, opting instead to sit idle and wait until the following year to question the investigation and resultant order, in the guise of opposing the writ of execution through a motion dubbed "Double Verified Special Appearance to Oppose 'Writ of Execution' For Being a Blatant and Dangerous Violation of Due Process."36 Such appeal already went beyond the ten-day period allowed under Section 8(b) of Rule X-B of the Implementing Rules.
In fine, the CA was correct in holding that public respondent did not commit grave abuse of discretion in rejecting the appeal of petitioner due to the insufficiency of her appeal bond.
Even if we delve into its substance, her appeal would still not prosper. Petitioner questions the August 12, 1998 Compliance Order on the grounds that she was never notified of the proceedings leading to its issuance, and that as early as 1997, her employment relationship with the private respondents had already been severed.
Anent the second issue, the records do not sustain petitioner's claim. In a Collective Bargaining Agreement dated January 29, 1998,40 petitioner acknowledged under oath that she is the employer of private respondents Mardy Cabigo, et al., who are members of the union known as Commercial and Agro-Industrial Labor Organization.
**** Spelled "Sanadre"in the December 17, 1998 Writ of Execution issued by DOLE Bacolod; rollo, p. 104.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Bernardo P. Abesamis and concurred in by Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Edgardo F. Sundiam; rollo, p.42.
4 CA rollo, p. 65.
5 CA rollo, p. 91.
8 Memorandum for Public Respondent, id. at 222.
21 Verified Appeal, rollo, p. 82.
22 An Act Further Strengthening the Visitorial and Enforcement Powers of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, Amending for the Purpose Article 128 (b) of LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES "FULL TEXT" Presidential Decree No. 442.
23 September 21, 2001 DOLE Order, id. at 28.
24 377 Phil. 80, 92 (1999).
26 Petition, id. at 27.
27 359 Phil. 197 (1998).
28 Guico, Jr. v. Hon. Quisumbing, id. at 209.
29 Sapitan v. JB Line, G.R. No. 163775, October 19, 2007.
In case of judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from.
31 Nicol v. Footjoy Industrial Corp., G.R. No. 159372, July 27, 2007.
32 Computer Innovations Center v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 152410, June 29, 2005, 462 SCRA 183, 189.
34 Laguna CATV Network, Inc. v. Maraan, 440 Phil. 734, 740 (2002).
35 EJR Crafts Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 154101, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 340, 351.
37 Velayo-Fong v. Velayo, G.R. NO. 155488, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 320, 329.
38 EJR Crafts Corporation v. Court of Appeals, supra note 35, at 349.
40 CA rollo, pp. 70-83.

References: Art. 128
 v. 
In fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.