ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 143520. July 19, 2000]
NORTH STAR PORT DEV'T CORP. et al., vs. CA, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 19 2000.
G.R. No. 143520 (North Star Port Development Corporation and Rosauro A. Aguinaldo, vs. Court of Appeals and Avelino A. Catacuan.)
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse the Decision of the Court of Appeals, Fourth Division, in CA-G.R. SP No. 52716,1 North Star Port Development Corporation and Rosauro Aguinaldo, Petitioners vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Avelino Catacutan, Repondents. dated May 31, 2000 which dismissed petitioner's petition for certiorari and mandamus for lack of merit.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Private respondent Avelino Catacutan filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of 13th month pay against petitioners North Star Port Development Corporation and Rosauro Aguinaldo. On June 3, 1994, Labor Arbiter Salimathar V. Nambi rendered a Decision ordering petitioner corporation to reinstate Catacutan to his former position with full backwages and to pay him his 13th month pay for the year 1993. However, said decision did not include the computation of the actual monetary award due Catacutan.
Petitioners appealed the aforementioned decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). At the instance of the NLRC, the amount of backwages and 13th month pay due was computed and was determined to be in the amount of P44,400.00.2 Order of the National Labor Relations Commission, dated October 28, 1994, Rollo, pp. 22-23.
Thereafter, the NLRC issued an Order, dated October 28, 1994, requiring petitioners to post a bond equivalent to the aforesaid amount within five (5) days from receipt of the Order; otherwise, their appeal would be dismissed.3 Id., at 23. In compliance therewith, petitioners posted a bond in the amount of P44,400.00.4 Id., at 24-26.
On June 22, 1995, the NLRC rendered a Decision setting aside the Labor Arbiter's decision and remanding the case for further proceedings.5 Id., at 27-32.
On August 25, 1997, Labor Arbiter Daniel C. Cueto rendered a Decision in the same case, ordering petitioners to reinstate Catacutan with full backwages equivalent to three (3) years or, if Catacutan no longer wanted to be reinstated, to pay him his separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service.6 Id., at 33-38. While the computation of the monetary award was not contained in the Decision itself, the computation made by the Research and Information Unit of the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC was attached thereto and made an integral part thereof.7 Id., at 38. The monetary award was determined to be in the amount of P177,855.82.
Petitioners appealed the aforesaid Decision to the NLRC but the latter dismissed the appeal on the ground that petitioners failed to post a bond equivalent to the monetary award, as required by the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC.8 Resolution of the NLRC in Case No. 00-11-7248-93, dated June 24, 1998, Id., at 39-43. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was, likewise, denied.9 Resolution of the NLRC, dated December 18, 1998, Id., at 49-51.
The Court of Appeals also dismissed petitioners' petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the NLRC's dismissal of their appeal for lack of merit.10 Decision of the Court of Appeals, Fourth Division, in CA-G.R. SP No. 52716, dated May 31, 2000, Id., at 53-61.
Hence, this petition. Petitioners contend that their appeal should not have been dismissed simply because they failed to post a bond in the amount of P177,855.82, the amount equivalent to the monetary award as determined by the Research and Information Unit of the NLRC's Arbitration Branch.
We find no error in the dismissal of the petition for certiorari and mandamus by the Court of Appeals.
We agree with the appellate court's finding that the NLRC correctly dismissed petitioners' appeal from Labor Arbiter Cueto's decision, since Article 223 of the Labor Code clearly states that:
x x x
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 to the judgment appealed from.
x x x 11 Article 223, par. 2, Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended.
Similarly, Section 6, Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC provides:
In case the decision of the 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 posting 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.
x x x
The same Rule also states that in cases where the Labor Arbiter's decision includes a monetary award, an appeal therefrom shall be perfected only upon fulfillment of all the requirements, including the filing of a cash or surety bond.12 See Section 3, in relation to Sections 5 and 6 of Rule VI, New Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission.
Petitioners were aware that a computation of the monetary award was attached to and made an integral part of Labor Arbiter Cueto's decision. Yet, they made no effort to comply with the unequivocal requirements of the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. As correctly held by the appellate court:
The Assailed NLRC Resolution plainly states that the decision of Labor Arbiter Cueto involves a monetary award of Php177,855.82, obviously referring to the computation of the Research and Information Unit of the National Capital Region Branch of the NLRC mentioned in the x x x Labor Arbiter's decision. This is the amount of cash and surety appeal bond that petitioners were required, but failed, to post to perfect their appeal. They cannot feign ignorance of the amount of the bond they were to post because, as heretofore pointed out, the Labor Arbiter made it abundantly clear in his decision that the total amount of the monetary award as computed by their Research and Information Unit is attached to the records of the case and, by reference, made an integral part of the decision. 13 Decision of the Court of Appeals, Fourth Division, in CA-G.R. SP No. 52716, dated May 31, 2000, Rollo, p. 59.
That the computation of the monetary award was not contained in the body of the Labor Arbiter's decision but only attached thereto does not make it less binding, since it was the labor Arbiter himself who stated that such computation was an integral part of his decision. Hence, the dismissal of petitioners' appeal for failure to post the necessary cash or surety bond was due to their own fault.
It is established doctrine that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory, but jurisdictional, and the failure to perfect that appeal renders the judgment of the court or tribunal final and executory.14 Demata vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 127687, February 25, 1999, citing Bank of America, NT & SA vs. Gerochi, Jr., 230 SCRA 9.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
