Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > October 2007 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 152350 : October 10, 2007] ATLANTIC GULF & PACIFIC CO. OF MANILA, INC. V. RONILO OCAL, ROILY SABIDO, EDWIN BALASABAS, YOLANDO MAQUILING, REMEGILDO UNDAG, ALEX MALCO, LEONIDES OLID, AND PASCUAL REYES, JR. :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 10 October 2007:

G.R. No. 152350 (Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. of Manila, Inc. v. Ronilo Ocal, Roily Sabido, Edwin Balasabas, Yolando Maquiling, Remegildo Undag, Alex Malco, Leonides Olid, and Pascual Reyes, Jr.) � This is a petition for review of the Resolutions dated 22 January 2001 and 7 December 2001 of the Court of Appeals, dismissing petitioner's petition for review and denying its motion for reconsideration, respectively, for failure to attach in its petition the ruling of the labor arbiter in an illegal dismissal case.

Petitioner Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. of Manila, Inc. (petitioner) is engaged in the construction business. Respondents Ronilo Ocal, Roily Sabido, Edwin Balasabas, Yolando Maquiling, Remegildo Undag, Alex Malco, Leonides Olid, and Pascual Reyes, Jr. (respondents) are construction workers whom petitioner had hired in previous projects. Before May 1999, petitioner orally engaged respondents' services for the construction of the AIC Tower in Pasig City. On 31 May 1999, petitioner terminated respondents' services even before the completion of the AIC Tower.

Respondents sued petitioner in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) National Capital Region Arbitration Branch, Quezon City for, among others, illegal dismissal. In its Position Paper, petitioner contended that respondents are project employees whose services it terminated because the "particular phase of the AIC Tower project" for which respondents were hired was already completed.

In a Decision dated 18 January 2000 (18 January 2000 Decision), Labor Artbiter Felipe P. Pati (Arbiter Pati) ruled for respondents and ordered their reinstatement with backwages in the amount of P443,063.04. Arbiter Pati found respondents to be regular, not project, employees as there is no written contract between petitioner and respondents indicating the specific undertaking for which respondents were hired and its duration. As regular employees, respondents are entitled to security of tenure and their dismissal without cause renders petitioner liable for illegal termination.

Petitioner received the 18 January 2000 Decision on 4 April 2000. On 14 April 2000, petitioner filed an appeal with the NLRC with a motion to reduce the amount of the appeal bond due to "severe business losses" arising from "lack of available projects." Nevertheless, petitioner alleged in its appeal that a surety bond for P443,063.04 was attached.

In a Resolution dated 23 June 2000, the NLRC denied petitioner's motion to reduce the appeal bond and accordingly dismissed petitioner's appeal for its "non-perfection." Citing Article 223 of the Labor Code and Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRC New Rules of Procedure, as amended (NLRC Rules), the NLRC held that "the filing of the appeal, the payment of the appeal fee and the posting of the cash or surety bond must be made within" the ten-day period to file an appeal under Section 1, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules. The NLRC added that the mere filing of a motion to reduce the appeal bond, without posting any bond, will not suspend the running of the appeal period. The NLRC noted that contrary to petitioner's claim, no surety bond was attached to its appeal.

Petitioner sought reconsideration, contending that under relevant jurisprudence, the filing of the motion to reduce the appeal bond shall stand in lieu of an appeal bond. Petitioner also explained that the bonding company it had contracted "gave [it] the runaround," thus it failed to attach a bond in its appeal.

The NLRC denied petitioner's motion in the Resolution of 13 September 2000.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals assailing the NLRC Resolutions of 23 June 2000 and 13 September 2000.

In its Resolution of 22 January 2001, the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's petition for failure to attach a certified true copy of the 18 January 2000 Decision.

Petitioner sought reconsideration, contending that the subject of its petition was not the 18 January 2000 Decision of Arbiter Pati but the Resolutions dated 23 June 2000 and 13 September 2000 of the NLRC, certified copies of which were attached to its petition.

In the Resolution of 7 December 2001, the Court of Appeals denied reconsideration, holding that the 18 January 2000 Decision is a document relevant to petitioner's petition under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Hence, this petition. Petitioner maintains that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing its petition for non-attachment of the 18 January 2000 Decision. Petitioner also prays for the remand of the case to the Court of Appeals for its resolution on the merits; applying the rule of liberal application of procedural rules in quasi-judicial proceedings.

We deny the petition.

As the Court of Appeals held, the 18 January 2000 Decision is a document relevant to petitioner's petition under Section 1, Rule 65. In its petition in the Court of Appeals, petitioner assailed the rulings of the NLRC denying its motion for the reduction of appeal bond and dismissing its appeal. Petitioner prayed for the reduction of the appeal bond on the ground that it cannot afford to post the full amount of the bond due to financial difficulties. The award of backwages to respondents, as an incident to Arbiter Pati's finding of respondents' illegal dismissal, was provided in the 18 January 2000 Decision. Thus, there is no dispute that the 18 January 2000 Decision is relevant to petitioner's petition in the Court of Appeals.

In any event, we find that the NLRC did not err in denying petitioner's motion to reduce the appeal bond and in consequently dismissing petitioner's appeal for its non-perfection. Petitioner's invocation of Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. NLRC,^[1] where the Court held that a seasonably filed motion to reduce the amount of the appeal bond shall stand "in lieu of a bond," is unavailing.

Nationwide Security was based on the earlier ruling in Star Angel Handicraft v. National Labor Relations Commission,^[2] rendered under Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules as amended on 5 November 1993, which did not provide for the effect of the filing of a motion to reduce the appeal bond on the running of the period to appeal.^[3] In 1996, the NLRC amended Section 6, Rule VI by providing that "[T]he filing, however, of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect appeal."^[4] Thus, after the 1996 amendment, it no longer suffices for the appellant to merely file a motion to reduce the appeal bond. To suspend the running of the ten-day appeal period and thus prevent the Arbiter's ruling from attaining finality, the appellant must also attach to its motion a partial appeal bond consistent with its plea for the bond's reduction.^[5]

Here, petitioner filed its appeal with the NLRC on 14 April 2000; thus, it was covered by the 1996 amendments to the NLRC Rules. For petitioner's failure to comply with Section 6, Article VI, as amended, the NLRC correctly dismissed its appeal for not having been perfected. Article 223 of the Labor Code provides that �[I]n 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 compan x x x."

As for petitioner's invocation of the rule of liberal application of procedural rules in labor proceedings, suffice it to say that in the cases we have done so, there were justifiable grounds to excuse the non-filing of the appeal bond.^[6] None obtains here.^[7]

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] 341 Phil. 393 (1997).

^[2] G.R. No. 108914, 20 September 1994, 236 SCRA 580.

^[3] Section 6, Rule VI, as amended on 5 November 1993, then provided:

In case the decision of a Labor Arbiter, POEA Administrator and Regional Director or his duly authorized hearing officer involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer shall be perfected only upon the positing of a cash or surety bond 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 moral and exemplary damages and attorney�s fees.

The employer as well as counsel shall submit a joint declaration under oath attesting that the surety bond posted is genuine and that it shall be in effect until final disposition of the case.

The Commission may, in meritorious cases and upon Motion of the Appellant, reduce the amount of the bond. (Emphasis supplied)

^[4] Under Resolution 1-96, series of 1996, effective 5 December 1996. This amendment was reiterated in the NLRC Resolution 3-99, effective 1 January 2000, which further amended the NLRC Rules.

^[5] Ong v. Court of Appeal, G.R. No. 152494, 22 September 2004, 438 SCRA 668. Section 6, Article VI of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLR, effective 7 January 2006, now provides: �No motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on meritorious grounds, and only upon the posting of a bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.

The mere filing of a motion to reduce bond without complying with the requisites in the preceding paragraphs shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.�

^[6] E.g. When the Arbiter failed to compute the amount of the monetary award (Rada v. NLRC, G.R. No. 96078, 9 January 1992, 205 SCRA 69) or the appeal was filed before (Blancaflor v. NLRC, G.R. No. 101013, 2 February 1993, 218 SCRA 366) or shortly after (YBL (Your Bus Line) v. NLRC, G.R. No. 93381, 28 September 1990, 190 SCRA 160) the effectivity of the rule requiring the posting of appeal bond.

^[7] We note that petitioner dismissed respondents not for financial losses, the ground invoked in its motion to reduce the amount of the appeal bond, but for the completion of the phase of the construction project for which petitioner allegedly hired respondents.