CONTACT: |
Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
(632) 8524-2706 |
libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
352 Phil. 232
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 113051, April 22, 1998 ]
TEOFILO GENSOLI & CO.,
GLORIA GENSOLI, ET AL., PETITIONERS VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION AND NFSW-FGT/RODRIGO MONARCA, ET AL, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
PURISIMA, J.:
This
special civil action for certiorari
seeks to set aside and annul the Order dated August 11, 1993 of the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissing petitioners’ appeal, and its
subsequent Order of September 23, 1993 denying their motion for reconsideration
for failure to post the required surety bond.
Private
respondents are farm workers of Hacienda Vista Alegre and Gloria, two (2) sugar
farms formerly owned by Teofilo Gensoli and Company, a registered
partnership. In 1988, after the death
of original partner Mercedes Gensoli Siasat, the remaining partners agreed to
dissolve the partnership. After the
partnership was liquidated, petitioner Gloria F. Gensoli informed private
respondents of the dissolution of the partnership and cessation of its
operations, and offered to pay them separation pay equivalent to fifteen (15)
days for every year of service rendered, and to give them a relocation site at
Calumangan, Bago City, and a relocation allowance of One Thousand (P1,000.00)
Pesos for each family.
Some of the
workers accepted such offer but the others, including the herein private
respondents, demanded a higher separation pay.
Dissatisfied
with what was offered to them, the
private respondents filed with NLRC a Complaint for illegal dismissal against
the herein petitioners, praying for
reinstatement with backwages and damages.
During a
preliminary conference, petitioners
reiterated the same offer to private respondents but again, the latter rejected
it. So, on December 1, 1992, at the
subsequent preliminary mandatory conference between the parties, the Labor
Arbiter ruled, thus:
“During the mandatory conference, the parties agreed to submit as an issue the validity of the complainants’ separation from work.
Respondents are ordered to show valid cause for the complainants’ separation from work.
SO ORDERED.” (p. 9, Rollo)
In compliance therewith, the
parties submitted their respective position papers, pleadings, and
arguments. Petitioners’ pleadings
focused on the validity of private respondents’ separation from work.
On May 26, 1993,
the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision, holding that the dismissal of private
respondents was legal and valid, and ordered petitioners to pay separation pay
equivalent to fifteen (15) days salary for every year of service or a
total amount of Four Hundred Thirty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Two and
50/100 (P434,752.50) Pesos, plus ten percent (10%) of the
award, as attorney’s fees. (p. 10,
Rollo)
Petitioners
appealed the aforesaid decision to the NLRC; assailing the computation of private respondents’ separation pay and
award of attorney’s fees, for having no factual and legal basis, and for having
been made by the Labor Arbiter without due process. More specifically, petitioners complain that they were never
afforded an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence on the actual
length of service of private respondents, which is material to the
determination of the amount of separation pay.
In perfecting
their appeal, petitioners filed with NLRC a supersedeas bond to cover only the
amount of One Hundred Eighty One Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Nine and 10/100 (P181,969.10)
Pesos, the excess amount disputed on
appeal.
To the appeal of
petitioners, private respondents interposed their opposition on the ground that
the supersedeas bond posted by petitioners did not equal the monetary award of
Four Hundred Thirty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Two and 50/100 (P434,752.50)
Pesos and attorney’s fees.
As the appeal
from subject Decision was not perfected
within the 10-day reglementary period;
on August 11, 1993, the NLRC dismissed the appeal, holding, thus -
“XXX The Commission (Fourth Division) after due deliberation, RESOLVED to DISMISS the instant appeal for failure of respondent-appellants to comply with the requirement for the perfection of an appeal specifically the posting of the required cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award. The monetary award in the judgment appealed from isP434,752.50, whereas the supersedeas bond posted is onlyP181,969.10, and therefore, deficient byP252,783.40. The law and the present Rules of Procedure of the NLRC are very explicit in the matter of posting a cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award in order to perfect an appeal by an employer (Article 223 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, and Sections 3 (a) and 6, Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, as amended). As held by the Supreme Court, “x x x perfection of an appeal in the manner x x x prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional and failure to perfect an appeal as required by the Rules has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.” (Filcon Manufacturing Corp. vs. NLRC, 199 SCRA 814). This appeal was not perfected in accordance with law and the Rules.
SO ORDERED.” (pp. 186-187, Rollo)
Petitioners
moved for reconsideration of the aforesaid Order, and submitted an Ex-Parte
Manifestation, to inform NLRC of their willingness to put up an additional cash
bond of Two Hundred Fifty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Three and 40/100 (P252,
783.40) Pesos, to fully cover the monetary award of Four Hundred Thirty
Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Two Pesos and 50/100 (P434,752.50) Pesos.
On September 22,
1993, however, the NLRC denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration for lack
of merit. (p. 28, Rollo)
Undaunted,
petitioners found their way to this Court via the present
petition, contending that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing
their appeal.
The petition is
impressed with merit.
Salutory and
prevailing is the rule that technical rules be not strictly followed and the
spirit and intent of the Labor Code be taken into account. (Oriental Mindoro Electric
Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRC 246 SCRA 801 [1995].
True it is,
Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715, requires a
cash or surety bond in an amount equal to the monetary award in the judgment
appealed from. But for the perfection
of the appeal on the merits, to be threshed out by the NLRC, the requirements
of the law should be given a liberal interpretation. (Blancaflor v. NLRC, 218 SCRA 371 [1993], YBL (Your Bus
Line), et al. vs. NLRC, et al., 190 SCRA 160 [1990], Erectors, Inc. v.
NLRC, 202 SCRA 605-606 [1991], Manila Mandarin Employees Union v. NLRC,
264 SCRA 331 [1996], Star Angel Handicraft v. NLRC 236 SCRA 580 [1994], UERM-Memorial
Medical Center v. NLRC 269 SCRA 70 [1997].
This policy of
liberal interpretation was unequivocably ratiocinated and amply settled in the
case of Oriental Mindoro Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRC (246 SCRA 801 [1995]), to wit:
“The intention of the lawmakers to make the bond an indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer is underscored by the provision that an appeal by the employer may be perfected ‘only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond.’ The word ‘only’ makes it perfectly clear, that the lawmakers intended the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer to be the exclusive means by which an employer’s appeal may be perfected. That requirement is intended to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay, or even evade, their obligation to satisfy their employees’ just and lawful claims.
Considering , however, that the current policy is not to strictly follow technical rules but rather to take into account the spirit and intention of the Labor Code, it would be prudent for us to look into the merits of the case, especially since petitioner disputes the allegation that private respondent was illegally dismissed. x x x”
Indeed, well entrenched is the principle of liberal
interpretation of the Labor Code, as amended.
The
circumstances under which petitioners posted a deficient bond justify a liberal application of the
provision of law. Petitioners had
repeatedly offered to private respondents, Two Hundred Fifty Two Thousand Seven
Hundred Eighty Three and 40/100 (P252,783.40) Pesos, in payment of their separation pay, the said amount not being controverted. And in good faith, petitioners posted a
supersedeas bond enough to cover the excess amount of One Hundred Eighty One
Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Nine and 10/100 (P181,969.10) Pesos, being disputed
on appeal, and petitioners did later evince willingness to comply with the
rules, by offering to give an additional cash bond to take care of the
undisputed amount, not appealed from.
To repeat; there is a clear distinction between the
filing of an appeal within the reglementary period, and its perfection. Perfection may take place after the end of
the reglementary period for appealing. (Star Angel Handicraft v. NLRC, supra)
It is beyond
cavil that petitioners’ appeal was filed on time although not perfected by
reason of the deficient amount of the bond, a defect which may be corrected by
the simple expedient of posting the additional bond required.
In Sun Insurance
Office, Ltd. vs. Maximiano C. Asuncion, 170 SCRA 274 [1989], this Court relaxed
the ruling in Manchester Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 149 SCRA
562 [1987], by permitting a liberal interpretation of the rule that payment of
docket fee is jurisdictional. More so,
when the party involved demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules
by paying the docket fee needed.
Applying this
principle of liberal interpretation to the payment of docket fee, the petitioners, in the case of YBL (Your Bus Line), et al. v. NLRC (supra),
were given a chance to post the requisite bond and to avail of the remedy of
appeal.
Considering that
in their appeal below, the herein
petitioners posed the issue of due process - as to whether or not they (petitioners) were given adequate
opportunity to adduce evidence on the frequency of private respondents’
work, to be used as the basis for the
computation of separation pay, it would
be prudent for NLRC to look into the merits of the case - to the end that petitioners be not
deprived arbitrarily of their property in the cash amount of One Hundred Eighty
One Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Nine and 10/100 (P181,969.10) Pesos. We
therefore hold that petitioners should be allowed to provide the requisite bond, and to avail of the remedy
of appeal.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED;
the Orders of NLRC dated August 11, 1993 and September 23, 1993, respectively,
are set aside, and NLRC is hereby ordered to give due course to the appeal of
petitioners. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.