ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 142610. June 14, 2000]

CLARK DEV'T CORP., et al. vs. CA, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 14 2000.

G.R. No. 142610 (Clark Development Corporation and Gen. Romeo S. David, President vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, The National Labor Relations Commission, Second Division and Lualhati Lazaro-Ricafort.)

Petitioners assail the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the National Labor Relations Commission's dismissal of petitioners' appeal on the ground of its failure to post the required cash or surety bond within the 10-day reglementary period.

Petitioner Clark Development Corporation was declared by the Labor guilty of illegal dismissal. It received a copy of the decision of the Labor Arbiter on October 9, 1998 and filed its appeal on October 19, 1998. However, it failed to post the necessary cash bond or surety bond within the 10-day reglementary period as required by Article 223 of the Labor Code and Section 3, Rule VI of the NLRC New Rules of Procedure. Hence, the NLRC dismissed said appeal which action was sustained by the Court of Appeals.

Thus, the instant petition which we find unavailing.

The Court is not moved by petitioners' posturing that being a government owned and controlled corporation, petitioner is obliged to secure its bonds only from the Government Service Insurance System and from no other and that the reglementary period proved to be too short for them to secure the necessary bond.

What petitioners should have done when it became apparent that they could not secure the bond from the GSIS in time, was to ask for an extension of time within which to file said bond. Failing to do so, the Court must uphold the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals.

There can be no mistaking the intention of the lawmakers in making a bond as an indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer. This is underscored by the use of the word "only" when the law says that an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond (MERS Shoes Manufacturing, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 286 SCRA 647 [1998]).

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE