753 Phil. 132
PEREZ, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, [petitioners] are hereby found to have been illegally dismissed even as respondents are held liable therefore.Aggrieved, respondents interposed an appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal and paying the corresponding appeal fee. However, instead of filing the required appeal bond equivalent to the total amount of the monetary award which is P490,308.00, respondents filed a Motion to Reduce the Appeal Bond to P100,000.00 and appended therein a manager’s check bearing the said amount. Respondents cited financial difficulty as justification for their inability to post the appeal bond in full owing to the partial shutdown of respondent company’s operations.
Consequently, respondent corporation is hereby ordered to reinstate [petitioners] to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and other privileges with backwages initially computed at this time and reflected below.
The reinstatement aspect of this decision is immediately executory and thus respondents are hereby required to submit a report of compliance therewith within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.
Respondent corporation is likewise ordered to pay [petitioners] their 13th month pay and 10% attorney’s fees.
Backwages 13th month pay Attorney’s fees1. Andy Balite P162,969.04 P 17,511.00 P 18,048.002. Delfin Anzaldo 158,299.44 17,511.00 17,511.003. Monaliza Bihasa 116,506.62 17,511.00 13,401.75
All other claims are dismissed for lack of factual or legal basis.[4]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the [NLRC], the instant petition is GRANTED. The [NLRC’s] Resolutions dated November 27, 2008 and April 30, 2009, respectively, are hereby SET ASIDE. [The NLRC] is hereby directed to decide petitioners’ appeal on the merits.[8]In a Resolution[9] dated 30 December 2010, the Court of Appeals refused to reconsider its earlier decision.
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT REVERSED THE RESOLUTION OF THE NLRC DISMISSING RESPONDENTS’ APPEAL FOR NON-PERFECTION THEREOF.[11]
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. x x x.Implementing the aforestated provisions of the Labor Code are the provisions of Rule VI of the 2011 Rules of Procedure of the NLRC on perfection of appeals which read:
x x x x
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. (Emphases ours).
Section. 1. Periods of Appeal. - Decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter shall be final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof. x x x If the 10th day or the 5th day, as the case may be, falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, the last day to perfect the appeal shall be the first working day following such Saturday, Sunday or holiday.These statutory and regulatory provisions explicitly provide that an appeal from the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC must be perfected within ten calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter. In a judgment involving a monetary award, the appeal shall be perfected only upon (1) proof of payment of the required appeal fee; (2) posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company; and (3) filing of a memorandum of appeal.[14]
x x x x
Section 4. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal. – (a) The appeal shall be:
(1) filed within the reglementary period as provided in Section 1 of this Rule; (2) verified by the appellant himself/herself in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court ,as amended; (3) in the form a of a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof; the relief prayed for; and with a statement of the date when the appellant received the appealed decision, award or order; (4) in three (3) legibly typewritten or printed copies; and (5) accompanied by: i) proof of payment of the required appeal fee and legal research fee; ii) posting of cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; and iii) proof of service upon the other parties.
x x x x
(b) A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal.
x x x x
Section 5. Appeal Fee. - The appellant shall pay the prevailing appeal fee and legal research fee to the Regional Arbitration Branch or Regional Office of origin, and the official receipt of such payment shall form part of the records of the case.
Section 6. Bond. - In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter, or the Regional Director involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer shall be perfected only upon the posting of a bond, which shall either be in the form of cash deposit or surety bond equivalent in amount to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and attorney’s fees.
x x x x
The Commission through the Chairman may on justifiable grounds blacklist a bonding company, notwithstanding its accreditation by the Supreme Court.
It is in this light that the Court finds it necessary to set a parameter for the litigants’ and the NLRC’s guidance on the amount of bond that shall hereafter be filed with a motion for a bond’s reduction. To ensure that the provisions of Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure that give parties the chance to seek a reduction of the appeal bond are effectively carried out, without however defeating the benefits of the bond requirement in favor of a winning litigant, all motions to reduce bond that are to be filed with the NLRC shall be accompanied by the posting of a cash or surety bond equivalent to 10% of the monetary award that is subject of the appeal, which shall provisionally be deemed the reasonable amount of the bond in the meantime that an appellant’s motion is pending resolution by the Commission. In conformity with the NLRC Rules, the monetary award, for the purpose of computing the necessary appeal bond, shall exclude damages and attorney’s fees. Only after the posting of a bond in the required percentage shall an appellant’s period to perfect an appeal under the NLRC Rules be deemed suspended.The rule We set in McBurnie was clarified by the Court in Sara Lee Philippines v. Ermilinda Macatlang.[16] Considering the peculiar circumstances in Sara Lee, We determined what is the reasonable amount of appeal bond. We underscored the fact that the amount of 10% of the award is not a permissible bond but is only such amount that shall be deemed reasonable in the meantime that the appellant’s motion is pending resolution by the Commission. The actual reasonable amount yet to be determined is necessarily a bigger amount. In an effort to strike a balance between the constitutional obligation of the state to afford protection to labor on the one hand, and the opportunity afforded to the employer to appeal on the other, We considered the appeal bond in the amount of P725M which is equivalent to 25% of the monetary award sufficient to perfect the appeal, viz.:
We sustain the Court of Appeals in so far as it increases the amount of the required appeal bond. But we deem it reasonable to reduce the amount of the appeal bond to P725 Million. This directive already considers that the award if not illegal, is extraordinarily huge and that no insurance company would be willing to issue a bond for such big money. The amount of P725 Million is approximately 25% of the basis above calculated. It is a balancing of the constitutional obligation of the state to afford protection to labor which, specific to this case, is assurance that in case of affirmance of the award, recovery is not negated; and on the other end of the spectrum, the opportunity of the employer to appeal.In line with Sara Lee and the objective that the appeal on the merits to be threshed out soonest by the NLRC, the Court holds that the appeal bond posted by the respondent in the amount of P100,000.00 which is equivalent to around 20% of the total amount of monetary bond is sufficient to perfect an appeal. With the employer’s demonstrated good faith in filing the motion to reduce the bond on demonstrable grounds coupled with the posting of the appeal bond in the requested amount, as well as the filing of the memorandum of appeal, the right of the employer to appeal must be upheld. This is in recognition of the importance of the remedy of appeal, which is an essential part of our judicial system and the need to ensure that every party litigant is given the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause freed from the constraints of technicalities.[17]
By reducing the amount of the appeal bond in this case, the employees would still be assured of at least substantial compensation, in case a judgment award is affirmed. On the other hand, management will not be effectively denied of its statutory privilege of appeal.