Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53016:gr-178034-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 11:54:46+00:00

Document:
ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE, Petitioner, v. EULALIO GANZON, EGI-MANAGERS, INC. and E. GANZON, INC., Respondents.
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the October 27, 2008 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 90845 and 95916, granting respondents' Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond; directing them to post a bond of P10 Million; and ordering the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), to give due course to their appeal and to conduct further proceedings. Also assailed is the Resolution2 dated March 3, 2009 denying the motion for reconsideration.
In an Order17 dated March 31, 2005, the NLRC denied the motion to reduce bond and ordered respondents to post an additional bond of P54,083,910.00 together with the other requirements under Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure within a non-extendible period of 10 days from receipt thereof, otherwise the appeal shall be dismissed. Respondents moved for reconsideration but it was denied in an Order18 dated July 15, 2005; respondents were again ordered to post the additional appeal bond within another non-extendible period of 10 days from receipt thereof.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondents' appeal is hereby DISMISSED for failure to post additional bond as directed by the Commission and as mandated by law. Complainant's Ex-Parte Motion for Entry of Judgment and to Remand the Records to the Labor Arbitration Branch of origin is DENIED for being premature.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition for certiorari and prohibition docketed as CA GR SP No. 90845 and the 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 in the amount of P10,000,000.00. The NLRC is hereby DIRECTED to give due course to petitioners' appeal in CA GR SP No. 95916 which is ordered REMANDED to the NLRC for further proceedings.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution29 dated March 3, 2009.
Petitioner contends a) that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it outrightly dismissed the motion to reduce appeal bond without fixing a reasonable amount therefor, thus depriving the respondents their right to appeal the Labor Arbiter's decision; b) that the rules on perfection of appeals must be strictly applied; c) that the period for posting the bond cannot be made to depend on the discretion of the party; d) that respondents not only refused to post appeal bond within the prescribed period but the ground relied upon for the reduction thereof, to wit: the awards were patent nullity and excessive, was not meritorious.
SECTION 1. PERIODS OF APPEAL. - Decisions, resolutions or orders of the Labor Arbiter shall be final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, resolutions or orders of the Labor Arbiter and in case of a decision of the Regional Director within five (5) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, resolutions, or orders. If the 10th or 5th day, as the case may be, falls on a Saturday, Sunday or a holiday, the last day to perfect the appeal shall be the next working day.
SECTION 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.
Records show that respondents filed their Memorandum of Appeal and Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond on the 10th or last day of the reglementary period. Although they posted an initial appeal bond of P100,000.00, the same was grossly inadequate compared to the monetary awards of US$985,162.00 representing salaries and benefits for the unexpired portion of the contract, P2,000,000 as moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees equivalent to the total monetary award. Further, there is no basis in respondents' contention that the awards of the Labor Arbiter were null and excessive, and with premeditated intention to render respondents incapable of posting an appeal bond and deprive them of the right to appeal.
Admittedly, these rules as embodied in the Labor Code and the NLRC Rules of Procedure impose a burden on the employer intending to appeal the decision of the labor arbiter. Within the ten (10)-day reglementary period, the employer has to prepare a memorandum of appeal and to secure a cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from. The facility in obtaining the bond is highly dependent on circumstances particular to the employer. Yet it is highly probable that should the employer take the effort to secure the cash or surety bond immediately upon receipt of the decision of the Labor Arbiter, such bond would be available within the ten (10)-day reglementary period.
It also does not escape judicial notice that the cash/surety bond requirement does not necessitate the employer to physically surrender the entire amount of the monetary judgment. The usual procedure is for the employer to obtain the services of a bonding company, which will then require the employer to pay a percentage of the award in exchange for a bond securing the full amount. This observation undercuts the notion of financial hardship as a justification for the inability to timely post the required bond.
The failure of the respondents to comply with the requirement of posting a bond equivalent in amount to the monetary award is fatal to their appeal. For filing their motion only on the final day within which to perfect an appeal, respondents cannot be allowed to seek refuge in a liberal application of the rules. Under such circumstance, there is neither way for the NLRC to exercise its discretion to grant or deny the motion, nor for the respondents to post the full amount of the bond, without risk of summary dismissal for non-perfection of appeal.
While in certain instances, we allow a relaxation in the application of the rules, we never intend to forge a weapon for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberal interpretation and application of rules apply only in proper cases of demonstrable merit and under justifiable causes and circumstances,40 but none obtains in this case. The NLRC had, therefore, the full discretion to grant or deny their motion to reduce the amount of the appeal bond. The finding of the labor tribunal that respondents did not present sufficient justification for the reduction thereof cannot be said to have been done with grave abuse of discretion.
The records show that after the motion to reduce appeal bond was denied, the NLRC still allowed respondents a new period of 10 days from receipt of the order of denial within which to post the additional bond. Nonetheless, respondents failed to post the additional bond and instead moved for reconsideration. On this score alone, their appeal should have been dismissed outright for not having been perfected on time. The NLRC even bent backwards by entertaining the motion for reconsideration and even granted respondents another 10 days within which to post the appeal bond. However, respondents did not take advantage of this liberality when they persistently failed and refused to post the additional bond despite the extensions given them.
Time and again, it has been held that the right to appeal is not a constitutional right, but a mere statutory privilege. Hence, parties who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it.41 To reiterate, perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. The requirements for perfecting an appeal must, as a rule, be strictly followed. Such requirements are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and are necessary for the orderly discharge of the judicial business. Failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory.42 Just as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision.43 Thus, the propriety of the monetary awards of the Labor Arbiter is already binding upon this Court, much more with the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 90845 and 95916 dated October 27, 2008 granting respondents' Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond and ordering the National Labor Relations Commission to give due course to respondents' appeal, and its March 3, 2009 Resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration, 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. 042913-05 dismissing respondents' appeal for failure to perfect an appeal and denying their motion for reconsideration, respectively, are REINSTATED and AFFIRMED.
1 Rollo, G.R. NOS. 186984-85, pp. 47-70; penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo and Portia AliÃ±o-Hormachuelos.
14 Rollo, G.R. NOS. 178034 & 178117, pp. 65-105.
15 Rollo, G.R. NOS. 186984-85, pp. 216-227.
19 Rollo, G.R. NOS. 178034 & 178117, pp. 130-185.
20 Rollo, G.R. NOS. 186984-85, pp. 58-59.
21 Rollo, G.R. NOS. 178034 & 178117, pp. 243-245.
28 Rollo, G.R. NOS. 186984-85, p. 70.
31 Accessories Specialist, Inc. v. Albanza, G.R. No. 168985, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 550, 560-561.
33 As amended by NLRC Resolution No. 01-02, Series of 2002.
34 Colby Construction and Management Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 170099, November 28, 2007, 539 SCRA 159, 173.
35 Nicol v. Footjoy Industrial Corp., G.R. No. 159372, July 27, 2007, 528 SCRA 300, 310.
36 Computer Innovations Center, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 152410, June 29, 2005, 462 SCRA 183, 191.
40 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad, G.R. No. 127198, May 16, 2005, 458 SCRA 441, 449-450.
41 Air France Philippines v. Leachon, G.R. No. 134113, October 12, 2005, 472 SCRA 439, 442-443.
43 Tan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157194, June 20, 2006, 491 SCRA 452, 459.

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