ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 140121.December 8, 1999]

CARDINAL SHIPPING CORP. et al. vs. NLRC, et al .

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 08 1999.

G.R. No. 140121(Cardinal Shipping Corporation and Beato Shipping Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 2nd Division, Labor Arbiter Daniel Cueto and Rogelio M. Banawa.)

Respondent Banawa filed before the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages against petitioners arising from an overseas employment contract. After hearing, the Labor Arbiter ordered petitioners to pay respondent Banawa wages corresponding to the unexpired portion of the contract and vacation leave. Dissatisfied, petitioners went to the NLRC which dismissed their appeal for failure to post appeal bond within the reglementary period. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals arguing that they have a pending motion for reduction of surety bond so that they need not file an appeal bond. However, their petition was dismissed. When their subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioners filed the instant petition for review.

The petition bears no merit. An appeal by an employer, such as petitioners herein, from an adverse judgment involving monetary award may be perfected only upon the pasting of a cash or surety bond in an amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from (Section 223, P.D. 442, as amended otherwise known as the Labor Code). The case of Star Angel v. NLRC (236 SCRA 580) on which petitioners anchor their case simply states that a motion for reduction of bond may be filed in lieu of the bond within the appeal period. It did not state that the appeal by an employer may still be perfected even if only a motion for reduction of bond is filed. As ruled in that very same case, without the bond the appeal is not deemed perfected. The filing of an appeal bond is mandatory and jurisdictional (Vergara v. NLRC, 347 Phil. 161). Appeal being merely a statutory privilege, it must be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provision of law (PCIB v. CA, 229 SCRA 560).

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE