ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 164118.� May 25, 2005]
SARGASSO CONSTRUCTION vs. NLRC
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 25 2005 .
G.R. No. 164118 (SARGASSO Construction and Development Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission [4th Division] and Gorgonio Mongcal.)
Before us is a Motion to Order Petitioner SARGASSO Construction and Development Corporation to Put Up Cash or Surety Bond filed by private respondent Gorgonio Mongcal.
Private respondent argues that petitioner, without posting a cash
or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award of P205,010.00 in his
favor, appealed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
by filing a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), and without
said bond, filed this petition for review on certiorari before the
Court, which is in contravention with the requisites for perfecting an appeal
provided for by Rule VI of the 1990 NLRC Rules and Procedure. Private respondent
further argues that petitioner has practically stopped operation in the whole
Negros Occidental and that in case of closure of business of the said
petitioner, the same will prejudice private respondent who will be holding an
empty bag should the Court deny the instant petition.
In its Comment, petitioner submits that the NLRC Rules of Procedure requires the posting of an appeal bond only for appeals of the decision of the Labor Arbiter giving a monetary award to the claimant to the NLRC which is not a fact obtaining in the instant case; that it filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court with the CA and the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court before the Court and that neither NLRC Rules of Procedure nor the Rules of Court requires the posting of a cash or surety bond in petitions for certiorari and in petition for review on certiorari.
In his Reply, private respondent asserts that the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner before the CA is a mode of appeal under the guise of certiorari and therefore should comply with the requirements of the New Rules of the NLRC concerning the requisites for perfection of an appeal; and even assuming for the sake of argument that the said petition for certiorari is not an appeal and thus, does not require the posting of an appeal bond, petitioner cannot deny that the present case is an appeal from the decision of the CA affirming the monetary award given by the NLRC, hence, it is mandatory for the petitioner to post the required bond to perfect the appeal, and since petitioner failed to post said bond, the appeal is not perfected.
We deny the motion.
Section 6, Rule VI of the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC provides:
Section 6. Bond. - In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter, the Regional Director or his duly authorized Hearing Officer involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer shall be perfected only upon posting of a cash or surety bond, which shall be in effect until final disposition of the case, 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 aforequoted provision is very clear. It pertains to an appeal filed by the employer from the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC. In the instant case, petitioner (employer) did not interpose an appeal because the decision of the Labor Arbiter was in his favor. It was private respondent who filed an appeal before the NLRC.
When the NLRC ruled against the petitioner, the latter filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA which is the correct mode of judicial review of decision of the NLRC pursuant to the jurisprudential principle laid down in the case of St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC. [1] cralaw Rule 65 does not require the posting of any bond. Neither is it required in this present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
ACCORDINGLY, the Motion to Order Petitioner SARGASSO Construction and Development Corporation to Put Up Cash or Surety Bond filed by private respondent is DENIED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw G.R. No. 130866, September 1, 1998, 295 SCRA 494.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
