Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83373:57452&catid=1587&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:29:28+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 201237, September 03, 2014 - PHILIPPINE TOURISTERS, INC. and/or ALEJANDRO R. YAGUE, JR., Petitioners, v. MAS TRANSIT WORKERS UNION-ANGLO-KMU* AND ITS MEMBERS, REPRESENTED BY ABRAHAM TUMALA, JR., Respondents.
PHILIPPINE TOURISTERS, INC. and/or ALEJANDRO R. YAGUE, JR., Petitioners, v. MAS TRANSIT WORKERS UNION-ANGLO-KMU* AND ITS MEMBERS, REPRESENTED BY ABRAHAM TUMALA, JR., Respondents.
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the Decision2 dated November 25, 2011 and the Resolution3 dated March 12, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 96000 which reversed and set aside the Decision4 dated January 20, 2006 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR CN. 30-04-01713-01/ CA No. 036901-03, thereby reinstating the Decision5 dated July 14, 2003 of the Labor Arbiter (LA) finding MAS Transit, Inc. (MTI) and petitioners Philippine Touristers, Inc. (PTI) and/or its president, Alejandro R. Yague, Jr. (Yague) guilty of unfair labor practice, i.e., illegal lock out.
Claiming that the sale was intended to frustrate their right to self-organization and that there was no actual transfer of ownership of the passenger buses as the stockholders of MTI and PTI are one and the same, the Union, on behalf of its 98 members (respondents),16 filed a complaint17 for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, i.e., illegal lock out, and damages against MTI and/or Tomas Alvarez (Alvarez), and PTI and Yague (petitioners), before the NLRC, docketed as NLRC NCR CN. 30-04-01713-01/ CA No. 036901-03.
In a Decision22 dated July 14, 2003, the LA ruled in favor of the respondents, finding MTI and petitioners guilty of unfair labor practice, i.e., illegal lock out.
Dissatisfied, petitioners appealed before the NLRC by filing their Notice of Appeal31 and Appeal Memorandum,32 accompanied by a Manifestation with Motion for Reduction of Bond,33 praying that the required bond covering the monetary judgment of ?12,833,210.00 (full judgment award) be reduced in view of PTI’s liquidity problems. Simultaneously, petitioners posted South Sea Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. (SSSICI) Surety Bond No. G(21) 00271834 in the amount of ?5,000,000.00 (partial bond), seeking that the same be considered as substantial compliance for purposes of perfecting their appeal.
MTI, on the other hand, did not interpose any appeal.
Again, respondents vehemently opposed the foregoing actions of petitioners and sought for the inhibition39 of the Commissioners of the NLRC-Third Division for failure to dismiss the appeal despite the apparent failure to perfect the same.
In a Decision56 dated November 25, 2011, the CA annulled and set aside the modified ruling of the NLRC finding the latter to have acted with grave abuse of discretion in applying a liberal interpretation of the rules on perfection of appeal.
It held that PTI’s alleged liquidity problems cannot be considered as a meritorious ground to reduce the bond as there was no showing that they were incapable of posting at least a surety bond equivalent to the full judgment award.57 It further observed that the partial bond posted was defective, having been issued in favor of MTI and not PTI, and that the bonding company which issued the same was not authorized to transact business in all courts of the Philippines during that time.58 Perforce, the CA concluded that there was no basis to extend liberality to and relax the rules in favor of petitioners.
Aggrieved, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration59 which was denied in a Resolution60 dated March 12, 2012, hence, this petition.
The central issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA erred in ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC when the latter gave due course to petitioners’ appeal and consequently issued a modified Decision absolving petitioners from liability.
There is merit in the petition.
4. If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.
In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from.
SEC. 6. BOND. – In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Regional Director involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. The appeal bond shall either be in cash or surety in an amount equivalent to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and attorney’s fees.
No motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on meritorious grounds and upon the posting of a bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.
The absence of grave abuse of discretion in this case is bolstered by the fact that petitioners’ motion to reduce bond was accompanied by a P5,000,000.00 surety bond which was seasonably posted within the reglementary period to appeal. In McBurnie v. Ganzon,70 the Court ruled that, “[f]or purposes of compliance with [the bond requirement under the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure], a motion shall be accompanied by the posting of a provisional cash or surety bond equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the monetary award subject of the appeal, exclusive of damages, and attorney’s fees.” Seeing no cogent reason to deviate from the same, the Court deems that the posting of the aforesaid partial bond, being evidently more than ten percent (10%) of the full judgment award of P12,833,000.00, already constituted substantial compliance with the governing rules at the onset.
In this relation, it must be clarified that while the partial bond was initially tainted with defects, i.e., that it was initially issued in favor of MTI and not PTI, and that the bonding company, SSSICI, had no authority to transact business in all courts of the Philippines at that time, these defects had already been cured by the petitioners’ posting of Supersedeas Bond No. SS-B-10150, in the full amount of P12,833,000.00, issued on November 8, 2004 by the Far Eastern Surety & Insurance Company, Inc.,71 in timely compliance with the NLRC’s September 30, 2004 Order. Verily, the subsequent completion of the bond, in addition to the reasons above-stated, behooves this Court to hold that the NLRC actually had sound bases to take cognizance of petitioners’ appeal. As the Court sees it, the NLRC’s reinstatement of petitioners’ appeal in this case was merely impelled by the doctrine that letter-perfect rules must yield to the broader interest of substantial justice,72 as well as the Labor Code’s mandate to “use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.”73 It is important to emphasize that an act of a court or tribunal can only be considered to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction,74 which clearly is not extant with respect to the NLRC’s cognizance of petitioners’ appeal before it.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 25, 2011 and the Resolution dated March 12, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 96000 are hereby reversed and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the CA for the resolution of the substantive issues as discussed in this Decision.
Velasco, Jr.,** Leonardo-De Castro, Acting Chairperson*** Bersamin, and Perez, JJ., concur.
* Also known as “Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Mas Transit-Anglo-KMU.” See rollo, p. 78.
** Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1772 dated August 28, 2014.
*** Per Special Order No. 1771 dated August 28, 2014.
2 Id. at 13-29. Penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda with Associate Justices Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and Normandie B. Pizarro, concurring.
4 Id. at 243-253. Per curiam, signed by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and Commissioners Romeo C. Lagman and Tito F. Genilo.
5 Id. at 147-167. Penned by Labor Arbiter Edgar B. Bisana.
6 CA rollo, pp. 55-56.
7Rollo, pp. 78 and 156.
9 See Deed of Sale; id. at 118-120.
11 Id. at 41 and 246-247.
12 CA rollo, p. 57.
13 See list of names of the Union members (individual respondents) as mentioned in the Decision dated July 14, 2003 of the Labor Arbiter; rollo, pp. 147-150.
14 See sample Memorandum; CA rollo, p. 58.
16 See Position Paper filed on June 22, 2001; CA rollo, pp. 69-71.
18 See Position Paper filed on July 12, 2001; CA rollo, pp. 79-83.
19 See names of the 30 private respondents; id. at 82.
20 See rollo, pp. 245-248.
21 See Position Paper dated June 13, 2001; id. at 143-146.
35 Id. at 81, 217, and 248.
38 See Motion for Leave to Substitute Surety Bond dated February 26, 2004; CA rollo, pp. 204-206.
39 See Ex-Parte Motion for Inhibition dated February 12, 2014; id. at 208-212.
40 Id. at 154-157. Penned by Commissioner Ernesto C. Verceles with Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and Commissioner Tito F. Genilo, concurring.
54 CA rollo, pp. 52-54.
55 Dated August 28, 2006. Rollo, pp. 272-309.
59 Dated December 20, 2011. Id. at 333-339.
62Ramirez v. CA, G.R. No. 182626, December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 752, 761.
63 As amended by NLRC Resolution No. 01-02, Series of 2002, the applicable NLRC Rules of Procedure as petitioners’ Notice of Appeal was filed on August 29, 2003.
64 See Garcia v. KJ Commercial, G.R. No. 196830, February 29, 2012, 667 SCRA 396, 401-402 and 409-410.
65 555 Phil. 275, 292 (2007).
66 See University Plans Incorporated v. Solano, G.R. No. 170416, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 492, 505-506.
67Nicol v. Footjoy Industrial Corporation, supra note 65, at 287.
68 CA rollo, p. 169.
69 See Semblante v. CA, G.R. No. 196426, August 15, 2011, 655 SCRA 444, 449-451.
70 G.R. Nos. 178034 & 178117 and 186984-85, October 17, 2013, 707 SCRA 646, 693.
72Del Mar Domestic Enterprises v. NLRC, 347 Phil. 277, 288 (1997), citing Lamsan Trading, Inc. v. Leogardo, Jr., 228 Phil. 542, 549 (1986). See also Kapisanang Manggagawang Pinagyakap v. NLRC, 236 Phil. 103, 108-109 (1987).
73 Section 10, Rule VII of the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, as amended by NLRC Resolution No. 01-02, Series of 2002.
74Ramos v. BPI Family Savings Bank, G.R. No. 203186, December 4, 2013.
76 356 Phil. 811 (1998).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.