THIRD DIVISION
PHILIPPINE
TRANSMARINE
CARRIERS, INC.,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
146094
November 12, 2003
-versus-
FELIPE D. CORTINA,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:
For resolution is
a Petition for Review on
Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision[1]
dated May 14, 2000 and the Resolution[2]
dated November 14, 2000 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 54314, entitled "Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. and Blue
Flag
Navigation vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Felipe D.
Cortina." chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The factual antecedents
as gleaned from the records are:
Felipe D. Cortina, respondent,
was employed by Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., petitioner, as a
Third Officer assigned at the Blue Tank Lancer, a vessel owned by Blue
Flag Navigation. Pursuant to their contract, respondent's monthly
salary
is US$800.00 and his employment is for a period of one (1) year from
September
9, 1993.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, on January
20, 1994 or only after four (4) months, petitioner forced respondent to
disembark in Singapore because of the alleged sale of the Blue Tank
Lancer
vessel. As a consequence, he was discharged purportedly to be
transferred
to another vessel. But such transfer did not materialize.cralaw:red
On April 7, 1997, respondent
filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint against petitioner and Blue
Flag
Navigation for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salaries and
separation
pay, damages and attorney's fees, docketed as NLRC Case No.
OCW-RAB-IV-798-L.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On September 24, 1997,
the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision[3]
declaring as illegal respondent's termination from employment. The
dispositive
portion reads:
"WHEREFORE,
premises considered, judgment is hereby ordered, as follows:
1.
Denying
the Motion to Dismiss, for lack of merit.
2. Ordering
respondents
to jointly and severally pay complainant the total sum of US$2,640.00
as
payment of the salaries, fixed overtime pay and fixed leave pay;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. Dismissing
the claim
and counter-claim for damages and attorney's fees for lack of merit.
"SO ORDERED."
Petitioner interposed
an
appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). However, in
an
Order[4]
dated February 27, 1998, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for petitioner's
failure to attach thereto the original copy of the surety bond posted
as
well as the joint declaration of the employer, counsel, and the bonding
company that the surety bond is genuine.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner then filed
a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution
dated May 31, 1998.cralaw:red
Consequently, petitioner
filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals contending
that
the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing its appeal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 12, 2000, the
Court of Appeals promulgated a Decision dismissing the petition. Its
ratiocination
is partly quoted as follows:
"The
petition
is bereft of merit. "x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"The posting of a
surety
bond is a jurisdictional requirement. The attachment of proof that a
bond
has been posted signifies that such requirement has been satisfied. It
is the proof that serves as basis for the NLRC to acquire jurisdiction
on the appeal. It is not incumbent upon the commission to check on the
genuineness of the bond. Rather it is upon the petitioners to prove its
genuineness. A mere xerox copy cannot prove that the bond posted is
genuine. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"We are therefore
not
convinced that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the
appeal. What we rather see is its exercise of prudence in applying the
provisions of the law. Petitioners are, however, not as careful. The
negligence
on the part of the counsel in the discharge of his duty cannot be
approbated
if we are to have an orderly administration of justice. Their
negligence
cannot be justified on the ground that their messenger lacked
familiarity
with the proper procedure for they could have checked the records
themselves.
A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his
negligence
in connection therewith shall render him liable (Canon 18.03, Code of
Professional
Responsibility) "x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"Anent the issue
of
illegal dismissal, it is petitioners' contention that Cortina was not
illegally
dismissed, rather his contract of employment has been terminated due to
the sale of the vessel on which Cortina was embarked x
x
x.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"We do not
acquiesce
in the contention of petitioners. The dismissal of Cortina constitutes
discharge without cause. As correctly ruled by the regional arbiter,
'the
agency has not introduced any evidence showing that 'transfer' of
ownership
of the vessel where complainant was assigned is a justifiable reason
for
the termination of his contract of employment.' (Rollo, 36) When there
is no showing of a clear, valid and legal cause for the termination of
employment, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal
and
the burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for a
valid
and authorized cause. (Cosep vs. National Labor Relations Commission,
290
SCRA 704 [1998]).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"WHEREFORE, the
petition
is DISMISSED.
"SO ORDERED."
Petitioner filed a
motion
for reconsideration but it was denied by the Appellate Court, in a
Resolution
dated November 14, 2000.
In the instant petition
for review on certiorari, petitioner ascribes to the Court of Appeals
the
following errors:
(1) in
sustaining
the NLRC's finding that the subsequent submission of the original copy
of the appeal bond and the joint declaration of its genuineness did not
cure the defect of the appeal; chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) in ruling that
the
sale and/or transfer of the vessel is not a valid cause to terminate
respondent's
employment; and
(3) in upholding
the
NLRC's monetary award to respondent equivalent to his salary for the
unexpired
portion of the employment contract instead of his one (1) month basic
wage.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the Court
of Appeals. The posting of appeal bond and submission of a joint
declaration
on its genuineness is mandatory. Pertinent are Sections 4(a) and 6 of
Rule
VI of the NLRC
Rules of Procedure, as amended by Resolution No. 01-02, Series of 2002,
thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Section 4.
REQUISITES FOR PERFECTION OF APPEAL. (a) The Appeal shall be filed
within
the reglementary period as provided in Section 1 of this Rule; shall be
verified by appellant himself in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 of
the Rules of Court,
with proof of payment of the required appeal fee and the posting of a
cash
or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; shall be
accompanied
by a memorandum of appeal in three (3) legibly typewritten copies which
shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support
thereof;
the relief prayed for; and a statement of the date when the appellant
received
the appealed decision, resolution or order and a certificate of
non-forum
shopping with proof of service on the other party of such appeal. A
mere
notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites
aforestated
shall not stop the running of the period of perfecting an appeal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Section 6.
BOND.
— In case of 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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"In case of surety
bond,
the same company shall be issued by a reputable bonding company duly
accredited
by the Commission or the Supreme Court, and shall be accompanied by:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a) a
joint
declaration under oath by the employer, his counsel, and the bonding
company,
attesting that the surety bond posted is genuine, and shall be in
effect
until final disposition of the case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"x
x
x
x x
x
x x x"
The necessary
import
of the foregoing sections, as we held in Imperial Textile Mills, Inc.
vs.
NLRC,[5]
is 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 conform to the rules will render the judgment sought to be reviewed
final and unappealable."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, for petitioner's
failure to comply with the requirements on the posting of the surety
bond
and the submission of the joint declaration as to the genuineness of
the
surety bond, the Labor Arbiter's Decision has become final and
unappealable.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Assuming we relax the
rules on appeal bond and the submission of a joint declaration, still
we
have to deny the instant petition. Evidence shows that respondent was
illegally
dismissed from the service. But petitioner justifies such dismissal by
invoking Section 23 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract[6]
and Section 3, Article VI of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Obviously, petitioner
misses the point. As found by the Court of Appeals, there is no proof
that
petitioner sold the vessel, thus:
"Petitioner
did not present even an iota of evidence to prove that the vessel on
which
Cortina was embarked, was indeed sold. Neither did petitioner establish
that the vessel was laid-up or the voyage was discontinued."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the petition
is DENIED. The Decision dated May 14, 2000 and Resolution dated
November
14, 2000 of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Costs against the petitioner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Panganiban, Corona
and Carpio Morales, JJ.,
concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Annex "B", Petition for Review on Certiorari, Rollo at 24–39.
[2]
Annex "A", id. at 15-23.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Annex "A", Comment and Opposition, Rollo at 53–64.
[4]
Annex "B", id. at 65–66.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
G.R. No. 101527, January 19, 1993, 217 SCRA 237.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Section 23. Where the vessel is sold, laid-up or the voyage is
discontinued
necessitating the termination of employment before the date indicated
in
the contract, the seafarer shall be entitled to earned wages,
repatriation
at employer's cost and one (1) month basic salary as termination pay,
unless
arrangements have been made for the seafarer to join another vessel to
complete his contract in which case the seafarer shall be entitled to
earned
wages until the date of joining another vessel.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Section 3. Both parties agree that in case of x
x
x sale of any vessel covered by this agreement, the company
shall have the right to terminate the services of the seamen of such
vessel
prior to the expiration of the individual contracts, provided that such
seamen are paid separation pay equivalent to one (1) month basic
pay
x x x; however, the seamen affected x
x
x may opt to be transferred and continue working in the
other
vessels owned and operated by the company x x
x.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |