ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 136785. September 27, 2000]
DENNIS DEE vs. PEOPLE
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 27 2000.
G.R. No. 136785 (Dennis Dee vs. People of the Philippines.)
Petitioner Dennis Dee was the owner of a bakery under the name Bread Mart with outlets at R. Hidalgo St., Quiapo and Edsa Central, Mandaluyong.
From a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of monetary benefits filed by four of his employees, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on September 9, 1990 ordering petitioner to reinstate said employees and to pay the money claims amounting to P108,455.92.
On October 5, 1990, petitioner filed an appeal from said decision by registered mail.
On October 18, 1990, petitioner filed a notice with the Office of the Treasurer that he was retiring his business Bread Mart Enterprises effective September 30, 1990.
On October 19, 1990, the Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution for the enforcement of his decision, on the ground that copies of the decision were received by the parties and in the absence of an appeal, the same had become final and executory. Apparently, the appeal filed by petitioner by registered mail had not reached the Labor Arbiter.
On December 5, 1990, the Sheriff submitted a Return stating that he was unable to enforce the writ of execution. Bread Mart Ent. Was closed and petitioner's bank accounts with the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) and Security and Trust Co. were likewise closed.
Thus, a complaint for Fraudulent Insolvency/Swindling was filed with the Office of the Prosecutor. Dennis Dee was subsequently charged under Article 314 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) which reads:
xxx Fraudulent insolvency.-Any person who shall abscond with his property to the prejudice of his creditors, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor, if he be a merchant and the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period, if he be not a merchant.
The Regional Trial Court of Pasig City found him guilty and sentenced him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day.
On February 3, 1998, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto.
Hence, this petition. We required Comment on the petition.
Petitioner contends that the information for culpable insolvency was prematurely filed and should have been dismissed outrightly. At that time of the filing of the information, he was not yet a judgment debtor considering that the ruling of the Labor Arbiter dated September 9, 1990 had not yet become final and executory. He has timely appealed the ruling with the NLRC and elevated his case with the Supreme Court which was allegedly still pending consideration with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 115848, "Bread Mart, et al., v NLRC"). Moreover, petitioner asserts that he is not insolvent as to fall under the purview of Article 314 of the RPC considering that he has two other businesses and has still maintained his bank accounts.
Petitioner's contentions are untenable.
While it is true that petitioner appealed the ruling of the labor arbiter within the reglementary period, it is, however, borne out by the records that he failed to file an appeal bond as required by Article 223 of the Labor Code which reads:
ART. 223. Appeal. - Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. xxx
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 in the judgment appealed from.
The CA ruled that without the filing of the appeal bond, the appeal was not perfected. In such a case, it is as if no appeal was filed. Perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the same period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal as required by the NLRC Rules has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.1 Rosewood Processing, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 290 SCRA 448 (1998).
We likewise do not find error with the ruling of the respondent court that petitioner is guilty under Art. 314 of the RPC. Fraudulent Insolvency does not mean that the offender is insolvent. A debtor who has transferred his property to another place beyond the reach of the creditors has been found to be guilty of Fraudulent Insolvency. Petitioner's closure of the bakery was suspect. He closed the business and his bank accounts after the adverse judgment of the labor arbiter. He transferred his properties so as to place them beyond the reach of his creditors. This is a finding which we need not disturb. Well-settled is the rule that findings of facts of the two courts below are binding upon this Court.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition 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
