ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G. R. No. 146776.February 28, 2001]

NAN MEAT PRODUCTS & BONDOC vs. CA, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 28 2001.

G.R. No. 146776(Nan Meat Products and Elenoy F. Bondoc, General Manager/Owner vs. Court of Appeals, National Labor Relations Commission, Russel Sicat and Roderick Esguerra.)

Respondent Russel Sicat was employed by petitioner Nan Meat Products as driver of a delivery van of petitioner company at a monthly salary of P1,500.00. After making deliveries in Nueva Ecija on February 26, 1996, respondent Sicat was asked by petitioner Elenoy F. Bondoc to go to the police station where he later learned that he and two salesmen had been charged with qualified theft. From then on, respondent Sicat was not allowed to work anymore. He was given no notice of termination of employment.

The other respondent, Roderick Esguerra, was hired by the same company as a production supervisor at a monthly salary of P3,000.00. His duties included, among other things, the checking and loading of processed meat to the company sales vans. On February 26, 1996, he was summoned by petitioner Bondoc to his office. Petitioner Bondoc asked him about the claim of a company guard that he (Esguerra) handed the guard P100.00 after the guard saw him receiving P500.00 from respondent Sicat on the night of February 24, 1996. Because of the promise that he would be released immediately if he admitted the accusation against him, Esguerra confessed to the crime. Nevertheless, both respondents Sicat and Esguerra were detained in the Municipal Jail of San Fernando, Pampanga for two days and only released after posting their bail bonds.

On June 24, 1996, both respondents Sicat and Esguerra filed a complaint for illegal dismissal in the National Labor Relations Commission, Region III Office in San Fernando, Pampanga.

As directed by the Labor Arbiter, respondents Sicat and Esguerra submitted their position papers on October 23, 1996 and February 3, 1997, respectively. Petitioners failed to file their position papers despite due notice. The last notice to them was sent on March 13, 1997 and gave them ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the order within which to file their position papers. As petitioners still failed to file their position papers, the Labor Arbiter issued an order on January 29, 1998 submitting the case for resolution.

On May 14, 1998, judgment was rendered finding petitioners guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering them to pay respondents Sicat and Esguerra backwages, separation pay, unpaid salaries, salary differentials, and 13th month pay.

On October 26, 1998, petitioners appealed to respondent NLRC alleging, among other things, excusable oversight for their failure to file their position papers. They claimed that when their counsel of record withdrew from the case, they were not able to immediately secure the services of a new counsel, and that they were not personally informed of the notices.

In its resolution, dated January 14, 1999, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for having been filed late. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the resolutions of the NLRC. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

The petition should be denied.

Petitioners did not file their position papers before the Labor Arbiter despite several notices to them. Nor did they appeal the decision of the Labor Arbiter against them on time. They received a copy of the decision of the Labor Arbiter on October 12, 1998 and, therefore, they had until October 22, 1998 to appeal, but petitioners filed their notice of appeal only on October 26, 1998, four (4) days beyond the reglementary period of ten (10) calendar days within which to appeal under Art. 223 of the Labor Code. Petitioners explained that the belated filing was due to the suspension of work in government offices on October 22 and 23, 1998 on account of typhoon. Hence, they filed their appeal on the next working day, October 26, 1998.

While respondent NLRC may have accepted the belated appeal of petitioners by reason of fortuitous event, yet at the time the appeal was taken, no appeal bond, either in the form of cash or surety bond, accompanied the notice of appeal. As a result, petitioners' appeal was not perfected. Petitioners posted their surety bond only on November 4, 1998, which was thirteen (13) days beyond the reglementary period.

As the decision of the Labor Arbiter involved a monetary award, the second paragraph of Art. 223 of the Labor Code, which provides that the appeal by the employer may be perfected only by the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the NLRC in the amount equivalent to the monetary judgment appealed from, applies. Petitioners' failure to timely post the surety bond is thus fatal to their appeal. Indeed, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional (Garcia v. National Labor Relations Commission, 264 SCRA 261 (1996); United Placement International v. NLRC, 257 SCRA 404 (1996); Global General Services and Security Agency v. NLRC, 249 SCRA 408 (1995)).

The rationale of the law in imposing mandatory periods is to prevent needless delays and to insure the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. To extend the period of the appeal is to delay the case, a circumstance which would give the employer the chance to wear out the efforts and meager resources of the worker to the point that the latter is constrained to give up for less than what is due him (Italian Village Restaurant v. NLRC, 207 SCRA 204 (1992)). Failure to conform with the rules regarding appeal will certainly render the judgment final and executory, hence, unappealable, as correctly ruled by respondent Court of Appeals.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE