473 Phil. 628
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
“All told, it is the finding of this Arbitration Branch that the imputation against the complainant are but the product of afterthoughts, if not surmises, and guessworks. The inevitable conclusion is that complainant was dismissed without just and valid cause and absent due process. Accordingly, she is entitled to her backwages from February 15, 1999 up to the date of this decision and to separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary, hereunder computed as follows:Upon appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), in a Resolution dated March 31, 2000, dismissed the same for being late.
Backwages: P6,000.00/mo. x 7.5 mos = P 45,000.00 Separation Pay: at one (1) month pay = P 6,000.00 --------------- TOTAL P51,000.00
On the matter of the complainant’s claim for moral and exemplary damages, this is not substantiated by the complainant. Mere allegation of illegal dismissal is not enough as it is required that complainant must prove that bad faith on the part of the respondents attended her dismissal from employment.
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises being considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondents to pay complainant the sum of P51,000.00.
SO ORDERED.”
“We dismiss the petition.From the said Decision, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated May 23, 2001.
First. The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional. Non-compliance therewith is fatal and it renders the judgment final and executory. Non-compliance with the required procedure deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment, much less, to entertain the appeal. The requirements for the perfection of an appeal are intended to discourage employers from using the appeal to delay or evade their obligations to their employees. It also assures employees that the money judgment in their favor will be satisfied.
The reglementary period for perfecting an appeal is provided for in Art. 223 of the Labor Code, to wit:‘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. Such appeal may be entertained only on any of the following grounds: x x x’Whereas, the manner for perfecting an appeal is outlined in Section 3(a), Rule VI of the NLRC New Rules of Procedure, to wit:‘SECTION 3. REQUISITES FOR PERFECTION OF APPEAL. – a) The Appeal shall be filed within the reglementary period as provided in Section 1 of this Rule shall be under oath with proof of payment of the required appeal fee and the posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; shall be accompanied by memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof; the relief prayed for and a statement of the date when the appellant received the appealed decision, order or award and proof of service on the other party of such appeal.In addition, Art. 223 of the Labor Code, 2nd paragraph, provides that:’
‘A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal.’ (underscoring ours)‘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.’Therefore, an appeal is perfected by simultaneously filing a notice of appeal and a memorandum of appeal and by posting an appeal bond, all within the period of ten (10) days from receipt of the questioned decision.
In the instant case, petitioner Corporate Inn’s appeal to the NLRC was filed out of time and petitioner realized this lapse from start but it pleaded for leniency with the NLRC, as it does now before Us, x x x:x x x
Unfortunately, none of these circumstances sways Us to relax the rules in favor of petitioner. x x xx x x
Third. So far, petitioner has taken great pains to plead for a relaxation of the reglementary period for filing an appeal. But while doing so, it failed to establish the other requisite for the perfection of an appeal - the posting of an appeal bond. Understandably, the NLRC no longer saw it fit to discuss this requisite due to its conclusion that the appeal was filed out of time. However, it was incumbent upon petitioner to allege compliance with the required appeal bond in its petition to add more depth to the theory that it has perfected its appeal, but it did not. This lapse compounds petitioner’s clearly untenable position on its tardy appeal and leaves no doubt in Our minds that indeed petitioners failed in all aspects to perfect its appeal.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED and the resolutions of the NLRC, dated 31 March 2000 and 28 April 2000 are SUSTAINED in toto. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.”
“Under Article 223 of the Labor Code, a decision of a Labor Arbiter is final and executory unless appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission by any or both of the parties within ten (10) days from notice of the said Decision. Thus, the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period for the same is jurisdictional in character.”Similarly, in Peftok Integrated Services, Inc. vs. NLRC,[6] we considered the appeal of petitioner therein as flawed for being late, its appeal having been interposed seven (7) days beyond the 10-day reglementary period.