02. garcia vs. kj commercial
DESCRIPTION
Case, Lab RelTRANSCRIPT
7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest 1/20G.R. No. 196830.February 29, 2012.*CESARV.GARCIA,CARLOSRAZON,ALBERTODEGUZMAN,TOMASRAZON,OMERE.PALO,RIZALDEVALENCIA,ALLANBASA,JESSIEGARCIA,JUANITOPARAS, ALEJANDRO ORAG, ROMMEL PANGAN, RUELSOLIMAN,andCENENCANLAPAN,representedbyCESARV.GARCIA,petitioners,vs.KJCOMMERCIALand REYNALDO QUE, respondents.LaborLawAppealsAppealBondThefilingofamotiontoreducebondandcompliancewiththetwoconditionsstoptherunningoftheperiodtoperfectanappeal.TheRulesofProcedureoftheNLRCallowsthefilingofamotiontoreducebondsubjecttotwoconditions:(1)thereismeritoriousground,and(2)abondinareasonableamountisposted.Section6ofArticle VI states: No motion to reduce bond shall be entertainedexcept on meritorious grounds and upon the posting of a bond in areasonableamountinrelationtothemonetaryaward.Themerefilingofthemotiontoreducebondwithoutcompliancewiththerequisitesintheprecedingparagraphshallnotstoptherunningof the period to perfect an appeal. The filing of a motion to reducebond and compliance with the two conditions stop the running oftheperiodtoperfectanappeal.InMcBurniev.Ganzon,600SCRA 658 (2009), the Court held: xxx [T]he bond may be reducedupon motion by the employer, this is subject to the conditions that(1)themotiontoreducethebondshallbebasedonmeritoriousgrounds and (2) a reasonable amount in relation to the monetaryawardispostedbytheappellant,otherwisethefilingofthemotion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period toperfect an appeal.SameSameSameNationalLaborRelationsCommission(NLRC)RulesofProcedureSection2,ArticleIoftheRulesofProcedure of the NLRC states that, These Rules shall be liberallyconstrued to carry out the objectives of the Constitution, the LaborCodeofthePhilippinesandotherrelevantlegislations,andtoassistthepartiesinobtainingjust,expeditiousandinexpensiveresolution and7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest 2/20_______________*SECOND DIVISION.397VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 29, 2012 397Garcia vs. KJ Commercialsettlementoflabordisputes.Section2,ArticleIoftheRulesofProcedure of the NLRC states that, These Rules shall be liberallyconstruedtocarryouttheobjectivesoftheConstitution,theLabor Code of the Philippines and other relevant legislations, andto assist the parties in obtaining just, expeditious and inexpensiveresolutionandsettlementoflabordisputes.Inordertogivefulleffecttotheprovisionsonmotiontoreducebond,theappellantmust be allowed to wait for the ruling of the NLRC on the motioneven beyond the 10day period to perfect an appeal. If the NLRCgrantsthemotionandrulesthatthereisindeedmeritoriousgroundandthattheamountofthebondpostedisreasonable,thentheappealisperfected.IftheNLRCdeniesthemotion,theappellantmaystillfileamotionforreconsiderationasprovidedunderSection15,RuleVIIoftheRules.IftheNLRCgrantsthemotionforreconsiderationandrulesthatthereisindeedmeritoriousgroundandthattheamountofthebondpostedisreasonable,thentheappealisperfected.IftheNLRCdeniesthemotion,thenthedecisionofthelaborarbiterbecomesfinalandexecutory.SameSameSameTherulethatthefilingofamotiontoreducebondshallnotstoptherunningoftheperiodtoperfectanappealisnotabsolute.Inanycase,therulethatthefilingofamotion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period toperfect an appeal is not absolute. The Court may relax the rule. InIntertranz Container Lines, Inc. v. Bautista, 625 SCRA 75 (2010),theCourtheld:Jurisprudencetellsusthatinlaborcases,anappealfromadecisioninvolvingamonetaryawardmaybeperfectedonlyuponthepostingofacashorsuretybond.TheCourt,however,hasrelaxedthisrequirementundercertainexceptionalcircumstancesinordertoresolvecontroversiesontheirmerits.Thesecircumstancesinclude:(1)fundamentalconsiderationofsubstantialjustice(2)preventionofmiscarriageof justice or of unjust enrichment and (3) special circumstances ofthecasecombinedwithitslegalmerits,andtheamountandthe7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest 3/20issue involved.SameSameSameWhilethebondrequirementonappealsinvolving monetary awards has been relaxed in certain cases, thiscanonlybedonewheretherewassubstantialcomplianceoftheRulesorwheretheappellants,attheveryleast,exhibitedwillingnesstopaybypostingapartialbond.In Ongv.CourtofAppeals, 438 SCRA 668 the Court held that the bond requirementonappealsmayberelaxedwhenthereissubstantialcompliancewiththeRulesofProcedureoftheNLRCorwhentheappellantshowswillingnesstopostapartialbond.TheCourtheldthat,Whilethebondrequirementonappealsinvolvingmonetaryawards has been relaxed398398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDGarcia vs. KJ Commercialincertaincases,thiscanonlybedonewheretherewassubstantialcomplianceoftheRulesorwheretheappellants,attheveryleast,exhibitedwillingnesstopaybypostingapartialbond.PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt of Appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Armando San Antonio for petitioners. Rodil L. Millado for respondents.CARPIO,J.:The CaseThis is a petition1 for review on certiorari under Rule 45oftheRulesofCourt.Thepetitionchallengesthe29April2011 Decision2oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.115851,affirmingthe8February3and25June42010ResolutionsoftheNationalLaborRelationsCommission(NLRC)inNLRCLACNo.1200406108.TheNLRCsetaside the 30 October 2008 Decision5 of the Labor Arbiter inNLRC Case No. RABIII02977906._______________1Rollo, pp. 1141.7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest 4/202 Id.,atpp.4855.PennedbyAssociateJusticeSamuelH.Gaerlan,withAssociateJusticesRosmariD.CarandangandRamonR.Garcia,concurring.3Id., atpp.149157.PennedbyPresidingCommissionerHerminioV.Suelo, with Commissioners Angelo Ang Palana and Numeriano D. Villena,concurring.4Id., at pp. 163167.5Id., at pp. 102119. Penned by Labor Arbiter Mariano L. Bactin.399VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 29, 2012 399Garcia vs. KJ CommercialThe FactsRespondentKJCommercialisasoleproprietorship.Itownstrucksandengagesinthebusinessofdistributingcementproducts.Ondifferentdates,KJCommercialemployedastruckdriversandtruckhelperspetitionersCesar V. Garcia, Carlos Razon, Alberto De Guzman, TomasRazon, Omer E. Palo, Rizalde Valencia, Allan Basa, JessieGarcia,JuanitoParas,AlejandroOrag,RommelPangan,Ruel Soliman, and Cenen Canlapan (petitioners).On2January2006,petitionersdemandedforaP40daily salary increase. To pressure KJ Commercial to granttheirdemand,theystoppedworkingandabandonedtheirtrucksattheNorthernCementPlantStationinSison,Pangasinan.Theyalsoblockedotherworkersfromreporting to work.On3February2006,petitionersfiledwiththeLaborArbiter a complaint6 for illegal dismissal, underpayment ofsalaryandnonpaymentofserviceincentiveleaveandthirteenth month pay.The Labor Arbiters RulingIn his 30 October 2008 Decision, the Labor Arbiter heldthatKJCommercialillegallydismissedpetitioners.TheLabor Arbiter held:Afteracarefulexaminationandevaluationofthefactsandevidencesadducedbybothparties,wefindvalidandcogentreasonstodeclarethatthesecomplainantswereillegallydismissed from their work to be entitled to their separation in lieu7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest 5/20ofreinstatementequivalenttotheirsalaryforone(1)monthforevery year of service and backwages from the time that they wereterminated on January 2, 2006 up to the date of this Decision.Wecarefullyexaminedthedefensesetupbytherespondentsthatthesecomplainantswerenotterminatedfromtheiremploymentbutweretheone[sic]whoabandonedtheirworkbystaging strike_______________6Id., at p. 62.400400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDGarcia vs. KJ Commercialand refused to perform their work as drivers of the trucks ownedbytherespondentsonJanuary2,2006,visvis,he[sic]allegations and claims of the complainants that when they askedforanincreaseoftheirsalaryforP40.00,theywereillegallydismissedfromtheiremploymentwithoutdueprocess,andwegavemorecredenceandvaluetotheallegationsofthecomplainantsthattheywereillegallydismissedfromtheiremploymentwithoutdueprocessanddidnotabandoned[sic]their work as the respondents wanted to project. We examined thenarrationoffactsoftherespondentsintheirPositionPaper andSupplementalPositionPaperandweconcludedthatthesecomplainantswereactuallyterminatedonJanuary2,2006anddidnotabandoned [sic]theirjobsasclaimedbytherespondentswhentherespondents,intheirPositionPaper,admittedthattheir cement plant was shutdown on January 3, 2006 and when itresumed its operation on January 7, 2006, they ordered the otherdrivers to get the trucks in order that the hauling of the cementswillnotincurfurtherdelayandthattheirbusinesswillnotbeprejudiced.Grantingforthesakeofdiscussionthatindeedthesecomplainants abandoned their work on January 2, 2006, why thenthat [sic] the cement plant was shutdown on January 3, 2006 andresumedoperationonJanuary7,2006,whentherearefifty(50)driversoftherespondentsandonlythirteen(13)ofthemwereallegedlystoppedfromworking.Further,ifthesecomplainantsactuallyabandonedtheirwork,asclaimedbytherespondents,theymiserablyfailedtoshowbysubstantialevidencethatthesecomplainantsdeliberatelyandunjustifiablyrefusedtoresumetheir employment.7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest 6/20xxxxTheactsofthesecomplainantsinfilingthisinstantcaseamonthaftertheywereterminatedfromtheirworkismorethansufficientevidencetoproveandshowthattheydonothavetheintentionofabandoningtheirwork.Whileweacknowledgedtheofferoftherespondentsforthesecomplainantstoreturnbacktoworkduringthemandatoryconference,thefactthatthesecomplainantswereillegallyterminatedandpreventedfromperformingtheirworkastruckdriversoftherespondentsandthat there was no compliance with the substantive and proceduraldue process of terminating an employee, their subsequent offer toreturn to work will not cure the401VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 29, 2012 401Garcia vs. KJ Commercialdefect that there was already illegal dismissal committed againstthese complainants.7KJ Commercial appealed to the NLRC. It filed before theNLRC a motion to reduce bond and posted a P50,000 cashbond.The NLRCs RulingIn its 9 March 2009 Decision,8theNLRCdismissedtheappeal. The NLRC held:FiledwithrespondentsappellantsAppealMemorandumisaMotiontoReduceAppealBondandacashbondofP50,000.00only. xxxWe find no merit on [sic] the respondentsappellants Motion. ItmustbestressedthatunderSection6,RuleVIofthe2005RevisedRulesofthisCommission,amotiontoreducebondshallonly be entertained when the following requisites concur:1.The motion is founded on meritorious ground and2.Abondofreasonableamountinrelationtothemonetaryaward is posted.Wenotethatwhilerespondentsappellantsclaimthattheycouldnotpossiblyproduceenoughcashfortherequiredappealbond, they are unwilling to at least put up a property to secure asuretybond.Understandably,nosuretyagencywouldnormallyaccept a surety obligation involving a substantial amount withouta guarantee that it would be indemnified in case the surety bond7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest 7/20postedisforfeitedinfavorofajudgmentcreditor.Respondentsappellantsinsinuationthatnosuretycompanycanfinishtheprocessing of a surety bond in ten days time is not worthy of beliefas it is contrary to ordinary business experience. What is obviousis that respondentsappellants are not willing to accept the usualconditions of a surety agreement that is why no surety bond couldbe processed. The reduction of the required bond is not a matter ofrighto[n]thepartofthemovantbutlieswithinthesounddiscretion of the NLRC upon_______________7Id., at pp. 108111.8Id., at pp. 132136.402402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDGarcia vs. KJ Commercialshowingofmeritoriousgroundsx x x.Inthiscase,wefindthattheinstantmotionisnotfoundedonameritoriousground.x x xMoreover,wenotethattheP50,000.00cashbondpostedbyrespondentsappellants which represents less than two (2) percentofthemonetaryawardisdismallydisproportionatetothemonetaryawardofP2,612,930.00andthattheamountofbondpostedbyrespondentsappellantsisnotreasonableinrelationtothe monetary award. xxx A motion to reduce bond that does notsatisfytheconditionsrequiredunderNLRCRulesshallnotstopthe running of the period to perfect an appeal xxx.Conversely,respondentsappellantsfailedtoperfectanappealfor failure to post the required bond.9KJ Commercial filed a motion10 for reconsideration andpostedaP2,562,930suretybond.Inits8February2010Resolution, the NLRC granted the motion and set aside theLabor Arbiters 30 October 2008 Decision. The NLRC held:xxx [T]his Commission opts to resolve and grant the MotionforReconsiderationfiledbyrespondentappellantseekingforreconsiderationofOurDecisionpromulgatedonMarch9,2009dismissingtheAppealfornonperfection,therebeinganhonesteffort by the appellants to comply with putting up the full amountoftherequiredappealbond.Moreover,consideringthemeritoftheappeal,bygrantingthemotionforreconsideration,theparamountinterestofjusticeisbetterservedintheresolutionofthis case.7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest 8/20xxxxGoing overtherecordofthecase,thisCommissionnotedthatinrespondentsSupplementalPositionPaper,indenyingcomplainantsimputationofillegaldismissal,respondentscategoricallyalleged..[.]thatcomplainantswerenotillegallydismissed but on January 2, 2006, they abandoned their work bymeansof[]workstoppage[]ortheyengagedinan[]illegalstrike[] when they demanded for a higher rate..[.] that while theirrespectiveassignedtruckswereallinthecementplantready tobeloaded,complainantsparalyzedrespondentshaulingortrucking operation by staging a_______________9 Id., at pp. 133135.10 Id., at pp. 137138.403VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 29, 2012 403Garcia vs. KJ CommercialworkstoppageatthepremisesofKJCommercialcompoundbyfurther blocking their codrivers not to report for work. We haveobservedthatdespitethesedamagingallegations,complainantsneverbotheredtodisputenorcontradictedthesematerialallegations.Complainantssilenceonthesematerialallegationsconsequentlylendssupporttorespondentsappellants[]contention that complainants were never dismissed at all but hadstoppeddrivingthehaulertruckassignedtoeachofthemwhentheir demand for salary increase in the amount they wish was notgranted by respondentsappellants.Moreover,contrarytothefindingsoftheLaborArbiter,thepurported shutdown of the cement plant being cited by the LaborArbiteraquoastheprincipalcauseofcomplainantspurporteddismissalcannotbeattributedtorespondentsbecauseitwasneverestablishedbyevidencethatrespondentsweretheowner[sic]ofthecementplantwherecomplainantsastruckdriverswere hauling cargoes of cement with trucks owned by respondentswhosebusinessisconfinedtothatofacementdistributorandcargotruckhauler.Basedontheundisputedaccountofrespondentsappellants,itappearsthatthecementplantwascompelled to shut down because the hauling or trucking operationwasparalyzedduetocomplainantsresorttoworkstoppagebyrefusingtodrivetheirhaulertrucksdespitetheorderofthemanagementforthemtogetthetruckswhichblockadedthe7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest 9/20cement plant.Furthermore, a perusal of the complainants position paper andamendedpositionpaperfailedtoallegetheovertactsshowinghowtheywereinfactdismissedon02January2006.Thecomplainants had not even alleged that they were specifically toldthattheyweredismissedaftertheydemandedforasalaryincrease or any statement to that effect. Neither had they allegedthattheywerepreventedfromreportingforwork.Thisonlyshows there was never a dismissal to begin with.xxxxWecannotaffirmtheLaborArbitersconclusionsabsentshowingafactofterminationorcircumstancesunderwhichthedismissalwaseffected.ThoughonlysubstantialevidenceisrequiredinproceedingsbeforetheLaborArbitertosupportalitigantsclaim,thesamestillrequiresevidenceseparateanddifferent,andsomethingwhichsupportstheallegationsaffirmativelymade.Thecomplainantsclaimthattheyweredismissed on 02 January 2006, absent404404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDGarcia vs. KJ Commercialproofthereoforanysupportingevidencetheretoisatbestselfserving.11Petitionersfiledamotionforreconsideration.Inits25June 2010 Resolution, the NLRC denied the motion for lackof merit. The NLRC held:WestressthatitiswithinthepoweranddiscretionofthisCommissiontograntordenyamotiontoreduceappealbond.Havingearlierdeniedthemotiontoreducebondoftherespondentsappellants,thisCommissionisnotprecludedfromreconsideringitsearlierDecisiononsecondlookwhenitfindsmeritoriousgroundtoservetheendsofjustice.Settledisthenorm in the matter of appeal bonds that letterperfect rules mustyieldtothebroaderinterestofsubstantialjusticex x x.Inthiscase, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter had not really become finalandexecutoryasrespondentstimelyfiledaMemorandumofAppeal with a Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond and a partial appealbond.Althoughtherespondents[]appealwasdismissed,intheearlierdecision,thesameDecisionwaslaterreconsideredonconsiderationsthattheLaborArbitercommittedpalpableerrorsinhisfindingsandthemonetaryawardstotheappelleesare7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest 10/20securedbyapartialbondandthenlater,byanappealbondforthe full amount of the monetary awards.12PetitionersfiledwiththeCourtofAppealsapetition13for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.The Court of Appeals RulingInits29April2011Decision,theCourtofAppealsdismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRCs 8 Februaryand 25 June 2010 Resolutions. The Court of Appeals held:Afterscrupulouslyexaminingthecontrastingpositionsoftheparties,andtheconflictingdecisionsofthelabortribunals,Wefind the records of the case bereft of evidence to substantiate theconclu_______________11 Id., at pp. 150156.12 Id., at p. 166.13 Id., at pp. 168188.405VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 29, 2012 405Garcia vs. KJ Commercialsions reached by the Labor Arbiter that petitioners were illegallydismissed from employment.While petitioners vehemently argue that they were unlawfullyseparatedfromwork,recordsaredevoidofevidencetoshowthefactofdismissal.Neitherwasthereanyevidenceofferedbypetitionerstoprovethattheywerenolongerallowedtoperformtheir duties as truck drivers or they were prevented from enteringKJCommercialspremises,exceptfortheiremptyandgeneralallegationsthattheywereillegallydismissedfromemployment.SuchbareandsweepingstatementcontainsnothingbutemptyimputationofafactthatcouldhardlybegivenanyevidentiaryweightbythisCourt.Attheveryleast,petitionersshouldhavedetailedorelaboratedthecircumstancessurroundingtheirdismissalorsubstantiatetheirclaimsbysubmittingevidencetobutresssuchcontention.Withoutadoubt,petitionersallegationofillegaldismissalhasnolegtostandon.Accordingly,theyshouldnotexpectthisCourttoswallowtheirasseverationhook,line and sinker in the absence of supporting proof. Allegation thatonewasillegallydismissedfromworkisnotamagicwordthat7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest 11/20once invoked will automatically sway this Court to rule in favor ofthe party invoking it. There must first be substantial evidence toprove that indeed there was illegal dismissal before the employerbears the burden to prove the contrary.14Hence, the present petition.The IssuePetitionersraiseasissuethattheLaborArbiters30October2008Decisionbecamefinalandexecutorythus,the NLRCs 8 February and 25 June 2010 Resolutions andtheCourtofAppeals29April2011Decisionarevoidforlackofjurisdiction.PetitionersclaimthatKJCommercialfailed to perfect an appeal since the motion to reduce bonddid not stop the running of the period to appeal.The Courts RulingThe petition is unmeritorious._______________14 Id., at p. 53.406406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDGarcia vs. KJ CommercialWhenpetitionersfiledwiththeCourtofAppealsapetitionforcertiorari,theydidnotraiseasissuethattheLabor Arbiters 30 October 2008 Decision had become finalandexecutory.Theyenumeratedtheissuesintheirpetition:GROUNDS FOR THE PETITIONI.THENLRCCOMMITTEDGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETIONTANTAMOUNTTOLACKOREXCESSOFJURISDICTIONWHENITREVERSEDTHEDECISIONOFTHELABORARBITERAQUOANDPRONOUNCEDTHATTHEPETITIONERS WERE NOT ILLEGALLY DISMISSED DESPITECLEARANDSUBSTANTIALEVIDENCEONTHERECORDSSHOWINGTHATCOMPLAINANTSWEREREGULAREMPLOYEESTOBEENTITLEDTOSECURITYOFTENUREANDWEREILLEGALLYDISMISSEDFROMTHEIR7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest 12/20EMPLOYMENT.II.THENLRCHASCOMMITTEDGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETIONTANTAMOUNTTOLACKOREXCESSOFJURISDICTIONWHENITGIVE[sic]MUCHWEIGHTTOPRIVATERESPONDENTS[]BASELESSALLEGATIONSINITS[sic]MOTIONFORRECONSIDERATIONWHENIT[sic]ALLEGED THAT COMPLAINANTS HAD ABANDONED THEIRWORKBYMEANSOFWORKSTOPPAGEORTHEYENGAGEDINANILLEGALSTRIKEWHENTHEYDEMANDED FOR A HIGHER RATE.III.THENLRCGRAVELYERREDTANTAMOUNTTOLACKOREXCESSOFJURISDICTIONWHENITCONCLUDEDTHATCOMPLAINANTSPARALYZEDHAULINGORTRUCKINGOPERATIONBYSTAGINGAWORKSTOPPAGEATTHEPREMISESOFKJCOMMERCIALCOMPOUNDBYFURTHERBLOCKINGTHEIRCODRIVERSNOTTOREPORTFORWORK WITHOUT A SINGLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUCHALLEGATIONS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.407VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 29, 2012 407Garcia vs. KJ CommercialIV.THENLRCGRAVELYERREDWHENITCONCLUDEDTHATTHEPRINCIPALCAUSEOFCOMPLAINANTSDISMISSALWASDUETOTHEPURPORTEDSHUTDOWNOFTHECEMENTPLANTCITEDBYTHELABORARBITERINHISDECISION.15Accordingly,theCourtofAppealslimiteditselftotheresolutionoftheenumeratedissues.Inits29April2011Decision, the Court of Appeals held:Hence,petitionersseekrecoursebeforethisCourtviathisPetitionforCertiorarichallengingtheNLRCResolutionsandraising the following issues:I.THENLRCCOMMITTEDGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETIONTANTAMOUNTTOLACKOREXCESSOFJURISDICTIONWHENITREVERSEDTHEDECISIONOFTHELABORARBITERAQUOANDPRONOUNCEDTHATPETITIONERSWERENOTILLEGALLYDISMISSEDDESPITECLEARAND7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest 13/20SUBSTANTIALEVIDENCEONTHERECORDSSHOWINGTHATPETITIONERSWEREREGULAREMPLOYEESTOBEENTITLEDTOSECURITYOFTENUREANDWEREILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM THEIR EMPLOYMENT.II.THENLRCHASCOMMITTEDGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETIONTANTAMOUNTTOLACKOREXCESSOFJURISDICTIONWHENITGAVEMUCHWEIGHTTOPRIVATERESPONDENTSBASELESSALLEGATIONSINITS[sic]MOTIONFORRECONSIDERATIONWHENIT[sic]ALLEGEDTHATPETITIONERSHADABANDONEDTHEIRWORKBYMEANSOFWORKSTOPPAGEORTHEYENGAGEDINANILLEGALSTRIKEWHENTHEYDEMANDED FOR A HIGHER RATE._______________15 Id., at pp. 174176.408408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDGarcia vs. KJ CommercialIII.THE NLRCGRAVELYERREDWHENITCONCLUDEDTHATPETITIONERSPARALYZEDHAULINGANDTRUCKINGOPERATIONBYSTAGINGAWORKSTOPPAGEATTHEPREMISESOFKJCOMMERCIALCOMPOUNDBYFURTHERBLOCKINGTHEIRCODRIVERSNOTTOREPORTFORWORK WITHOUT A SINGLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUCHALLEGATIONS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.IV.THE NLRCGRAVELYERREDWHENITCONCLUDEDTHATTHE PRINCIPAL CAUSE OF PETITIONERS DISMISSAL WASDUETOTHEPURPORTEDSHUTDOWNOFTHECEMENTPLANT CITED BY THE LABOR ARBITER IN HIS DECISION.16Petitonerscannot,forthefirsttime,raiseasissueintheir petition filed with this Court that the Labor Arbiters30October2008Decisionhadbecomefinalandexecutory.Points of law, theories and arguments not raised before theCourtofAppealswillnotbeconsideredbythisCourt.Otherwise,KJCommercialwillbedenieditsrighttodueprocess.InTolosav.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,17 the Court held:7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest 14/20Petitionercontendsthatthelaborarbitersmonetaryawardhasalreadyreachedfinality,sinceprivaterespondentswerenotable to file a timely appeal before the NLRC.Thisargumentcannotbepasseduponinthisappeal,becauseitwasnotraisedinthetribunalsaquo.Wellsettledistherulethatissuesnotraisedbelowcannotberaisedforthefirsttimeonappeal.Thus,pointsoflaw,theories,andargumentsnotbroughttotheattentionofthe Court of Appeals need notand ordinarily will notbeconsidered by this Court. Petitioners allegation cannot beacceptedbythisCourtonitsfacetodosowouldbetantamounttoadenialofrespondentsrighttodueprocess._______________16 Id., at pp. 5152.17 449 Phil. 271 401 SCRA 291 (2003).409VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 29, 2012 409Garcia vs. KJ CommercialFurthermore, whether respondents were able to appeal on timeisaquestionoffactthatcannotbeentertainedinapetitionforreviewunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.Ingeneral,thejurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the CourtofAppealsislimitedtoareviewoferrorsoflawallegedlycommitted by the court a quo.18 (Emphasis supplied)KJCommercialsfilingofamotiontoreducebondanddelayedpostingoftheP2,562,930suretybonddidnotrendertheLaborArbiters30October2008Decisionfinaland executory. The Rules of Procedure of the NLRC allowsthefilingofamotiontoreducebondsubjecttotwoconditions:(1)thereismeritoriousground,and(2)abondinareasonableamountisposted.Section6ofArticleVIstates:Nomotiontoreducebondshallbeentertainedexceptonmeritoriousgroundsanduponthepostingofabondinareasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.Themerefilingofthemotiontoreducebondwithoutcompliancewiththerequisitesintheprecedingparagraphshallnot stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest 15/20Thefilingofamotiontoreducebondandcompliancewiththetwoconditionsstoptherunningoftheperiodtoperfect an appeal. In McBurnie v. Ganzon,19 the Court held:xxx [T]he bond may be reduced upon motion by the employer,thisissubjecttotheconditionsthat(1)themotiontoreducethebond shall be based on meritorious grounds and (2) a reasonableamountinrelationtothemonetaryawardispostedbytheappellant, otherwise the filing of the motion to reduce bond shallnot stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.20_______________18 Id., at pp. 284285 pp. 301302.19 G.R. Nos. 178034, 178117, 186984 and 186985, 18 September 2009,600 SCRA 658.20 Id., at p. 669.410410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDGarcia vs. KJ CommercialTheNLRChasfulldiscretiontograntordenythemotiontoreducebond,21anditmayruleonthemotionbeyondthe10dayperiodwithinwhichtoperfectanappeal. Obviously, at the time of the filing of the motion toreduce bond and posting of a bond in a reasonable amount,thereisnoassurancewhethertheappellantsmotionisindeedbasedonmeritoriousgroundandwhetherthebondheorshepostedisofareasonableamount.Thus,theappellantalwaysrunstheriskoffailingtoperfectanappeal.Section2,ArticleIoftheRulesofProcedureoftheNLRC states that, These Rules shall be liberally construedtocarryouttheobjectivesoftheConstitution,theLaborCode of the Philippines and other relevant legislations, andtoassistthepartiesinobtainingjust,expeditiousandinexpensive resolution and settlement of labor disputes. Inordertogivefulleffecttotheprovisionsonmotiontoreduce bond, the appellant must be allowed to wait for therulingoftheNLRConthemotionevenbeyondthe10dayperiod to perfect an appeal. If the NLRC grants the motionand rules that there is indeed meritorious ground and thattheamountofthebondpostedisreasonable,thentheappealisperfected.IftheNLRCdeniesthemotion,the7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest 16/20appellantmaystillfileamotionforreconsiderationasprovidedunderSection15,RuleVIIoftheRules.IftheNLRC grants the motion for reconsideration and rules thatthere is indeed meritorious ground and that the amount ofthe bond posted is reasonable, then the appeal is perfected.IftheNLRCdeniesthemotion,thenthedecisionofthelabor arbiter becomes final and executory.Inthepresentcase,KJCommercialfiledamotiontoreducebondandpostedaP50,000cashbond.WhentheNLRC denied its motion, KJ Commercial filed a motion forreconsideration and posted the full P2,562,930 surety bond.The NLRC then granted the motion for reconsideration._______________21 Id., at p. 671.411VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 29, 2012 411Garcia vs. KJ CommercialIn any case, the rule that the filing of a motion to reducebond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect anappealisnotabsolute.TheCourtmayrelaxtherule.InIntertranzContainerLines,Inc.v.Bautista,22theCourtheld:Jurisprudencetellsusthatinlaborcases,anappealfromadecision involving a monetary award may be perfected only uponthepostingofacashorsuretybond.TheCourt,however,hasrelaxed this requirement under certain exceptional circumstancesinordertoresolvecontroversiesontheirmerits.Thesecircumstancesinclude:(1)fundamentalconsiderationofsubstantialjustice(2)preventionofmiscarriageofjusticeorofunjustenrichmentand(3)specialcircumstancesofthecasecombinedwithitslegalmerits,andtheamountandtheissueinvolved.23In Rosewood Processing, Inc. v. NLRC,24 the Court held:Theperfectionofanappealwithinthereglementaryperiodandinthemannerprescribedbylawisjurisdictional,andnoncompliance with such legal requirement is fatal and effectivelyrendersthejudgmentfinalandexecutory.TheLaborCodeprovides:7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest 17/20ART.223.Appeal.Decisions,awardsorordersoftheLaborArbiterarefinalandexecutoryunlessappealedtotheCommissionbyanyorbothpartieswithinten(10)calendardaysfromreceiptofsuchdecisions,awards,ororders.Incaseofajudgmentinvolvingamonetaryaward,anappealbytheemployermaybeperfectedonlyuponthepostingofacashorsuretybondissuedbyareputablebonding company duly accredited by the Commission in theamount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgmentappealed from.Indisputable is the legal doctrinethattheappealofadecisioninvolving a monetary award in labor cases may be perfected onlyuponthepostingofacashorsuretybond.Thelawmakersintendedthepostingofthebondtobeanindispensablerequirement to perfect an employers appeal._______________22 G.R. No. 187693, 13 July 2010, 625 SCRA 75.23 Id., at p. 84.24 352 Phil. 1013 290 SCRA 408 (1998).412412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDGarcia vs. KJ CommercialHowever,inanumberofcases,thisCourthasrelaxedthisrequirementinordertobringabouttheimmediateandappropriateresolutionofcontroversiesonthemerits.Someofthesecasesinclude:(a)counselsrelianceonthefootnoteofthenotice of the decision of the labor arbiter that the aggrieved partymayappealwithinten(10)workingdays(b)fundamentalconsiderationofsubstantialjustice(c)preventionofmiscarriageofjusticeorofunjustenrichment,aswherethetardyappealisfromadecisiongrantingseparationpaywhichwasalreadygranted in an earlier final decision and (d) special circumstancesof the case combined with its legal merits or the amount and theissue involved.InQuiambaovs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,thisCourtruledthatarelaxationoftheappealbondrequirementcould be justified by substantial compliance with the rule.InGlobeGeneralServicesandSecurityAgencyvs.NationalLabor Relations Commission, the Court observed that the NLRC,inactualpractice,allowsthereductionoftheappealbondupon7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest 18/20motionoftheappellantandonmeritoriousgroundshence,petitionersinthatcaseshouldhavefiledamotiontoreducethebond within the reglementary period for appeal.That istheexactsituationinthecaseatbar.Here,petitionerclaimstohavereceivedthelaborarbitersDecisiononApril6,1993.OnApril16,1993,itfiled,togetherwithitsmemorandumonappealandnoticeofappeal,amotiontoreducetheappealbondaccompaniedbyasuretybondforfiftythousandpesosissuedbyPrudentialGuaranteeandAssurance,Inc.Ignoringpetitionersmotion(toreducebond),RespondentCommissionrendered its assailed Resolution dismissing the appeal due to thelate filing of the appeal bond.ThesolicitorgeneralarguesfortheaffirmationoftheassailedResolution for the sole reason that the appeal bond, even if it wasfiledontime,wasdefective,asitwasnotinanamountequivalenttothemonetaryawardinthejudgmentappealedfrom. The Court disagrees.WeholdthatpetitionersmotiontoreducethebondisasubstantialcompliancewiththeLaborCode.Thisholdingisconsistentwiththenormthatletterperfectrulesmustyieldtothe broader interest of substantial justice.25_______________25 Id., at pp. 10281031 pp. 420422.413VOL. 667, FEBRUARY 29, 2012 413Garcia vs. KJ CommercialInOngv.CourtofAppeals,26 theCourtheldthatthebond requirement on appeals may be relaxed when there issubstantialcompliancewiththeRulesofProcedureoftheNLRCorwhentheappellantshowswillingnesstopostapartialbond.TheCourtheldthat,Whilethebondrequirementonappealsinvolvingmonetaryawardshasbeenrelaxedincertaincases,thiscanonlybedonewherethere was substantial compliance of the Rules or where theappellants,attheveryleast,exhibitedwillingnesstopayby posting a partial bond.27In the present case, KJ Commercial showed willingnesstopostapartialbond.Infact,itpostedaP50,000cashbond.InOng,theCourtheldthat,Petitionerinthesaidcasesubstantiallycompliedwiththerulesbypostinga7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest 19/20partialsuretybondoffiftythousandpesosissuedbyPrudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. while his motionto reduce appeal bond was pending before the NLRC.28Asidefrompostingapartialbond,KJCommercialimmediatelypostedthefullamountofthebondwhenitfileditsmotionforreconsiderationoftheNLRCs9March2009Decision.InDr.Postigov.PhilippineTuberculosisSociety, Inc.,29 the Court held:x x x[T]herespondentimmediatelysubmittedasupersedeasbondwithitsmotionforreconsiderationoftheNLRCresolutiondismissingitsappeal.InOngv.CourtofAppeals,weruledthattheaggrievedpartymayfiletheappealbondwithinthetendayreglementaryperiodfollowingthereceiptoftheresolutionoftheNLRC to forestall the finality of such resolution. Hence, while theappealofadecisioninvolvingamonetaryawardinlaborcasesmaybeperfectedonlyuponthepostingofacashorsuretybondandthepostingofthebondisanindispensablerequirementtoperfect such an appeal, a_______________26 482 Phil. 170 438 SCRA 668 (2004).27 Id., at p. 181 p. 678.28 Id., at pp. 181182 p. 678.29 515 Phil. 601 479 SCRA 628 (2006).414414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDGarcia vs. KJ Commercialrelaxationoftheappealbondrequirementcouldbejustifiedbysubstantial compliance with the rule.30WHEREFORE,theCourtDENIESthepetitionandAFFIRMSthe29April2011DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals in CAG.R. SP No. 115851.SO ORDERED.Brion, Perez, Sereno and Reyes, JJ., concur.Petition denied, judgment affirmed.Notes.ItiswellwithintheNationalLaborRelationsCommissions(NLRCs)prerogativetodismisstheappealforfailureofthepetitionertocomplywiththe7/28/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME667http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ed529847ed3a25c27000a0094004f00ee/p/ANQ391/?username=Guest 20/20requirementsundertheNLRCRulesofProcedure.(Pedriatica, Inc. vs. Rafaeles, 590 SCRA 161 [2009])Posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of anappealincasesinvolvingmonetaryawardsfromthedecision of the labor arbiter. (Mindanao Times Corporationvs. Confesor, 611 SCRA 748 [2010])The rule on the posting of an appeal bond cannot defeatthesubstantiverightsofrespondentstobefreefromanunwarrantedburdenofansweringforanillegaldismissalforwhichtheywereneverresponsibleSincethecomplainantsperformedtheirfunctionsasmasiadorandsentenciadorfreefromthedirectionandcontrolofrespondents,andthatintheconductoftheirwork,theyreliedmainlyontheirexpertisethatischaracteristicofthecockfightgambling,andwerenevergivenbyrespondentsanytoolneededfortheperformanceoftheirwork,theyarenotconsideredasemployeesofthecockpitoperator.(Semblantevs.CourtofAppeals,19thDivision,655 SCRA 444 [2011])o0o_______________30 Id., at pp. 607608 pp. 635636.Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.