Lawyerly

GR No. 192394

2013-07-03

ROY D. PASOS v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

However, not only in one case has this Court relaxed this requirement in order to bring about the immediate and appropriate resolution of cases on the merits.[24] In Quiambao v. National Labor Relations Commission,[25] this Court allowed the relaxation of the requirement when there is substantial compliance with the rule. Likewise, in Ong v. Court of Appeals,[26] the Court held that the bond requirement on appeals may be relaxed when there is substantial compliance with the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC or when the appellant shows willingness to post a partial bond. The Court held that "[w]hile the bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards has been relaxed in certain cases, this can only be done where there was substantial compliance of the Rules or where the appellants, at the very least, exhibited willingness to pay by posting a partial bond."

GR NO. 151854

2008-09-03

PHILUX v. NLRC

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

While the bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards has been relaxed in certain cases, this can only be done where there was substantial compliance of the NLRC Rules of Procedure or where the appellants, at the very least, exhibited willingness to pay by posting a partial bond [32] or where the failure to comply with the requirements for perfection of appeal was justified.[33]

GR No. 167708

2008-08-22

SECRETARY OF LABOR v. PANAY VETERAN'S SECURITY

CORONA, J.

The legislative intent 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."[12] The word "only" makes it 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.[13] In one case, we held that:Anent the issue of whether or not the respondent Secretary of Labor acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's appeal on the ground that petitioner failed to post the required cash or surety bond, we rule in the negative.

GR No. 170099

2007-11-28

COLBY CONTSRUCTION v. NLRC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Time and again it has been held that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. The party who seeks to avail himself of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.[20]

GR NO. 159372

2007-07-27

RONALDO NICOL v. FOOTJOY INDUSTRIAL CORP.

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The filing of the motion to reduce bond without compliance with the requisites in the preceding paragraph shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The necessary import of the foregoing provisions is that in the case of an employer appealing the labor arbiter's decision to the NLRC, the posting of a cash or surety bond to perfect an appeal of a monetary judgment is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional, non-compliance with which has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.[19] Ong v. Court of Appeals[20] stressed: 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.[21] Be that as it may, Section 6 of Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, as amended, allows the reduction of the appeal bond. This practice-evolved rule[22] has been made explicit by Resolution 01-02, series of 2002,[23] subject to the conditions that (1) the motion to reduce the bond shall be based on meritorious grounds; and (2) a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award is posted by the appellant, otherwise the filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.

GR NO. 166594

2006-07-20

CIUDAD FERNANDINA FOOD CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

There is no dispute regarding the instances where a more compassionate interpretation of the rules may be allowed. These instances call for the existence of meritorious grounds and substantial compliance or at the very least, a willingness to pay by posting a partial bond.[21]

GR NO. 162233

2006-03-10

RONALDO B. CASIMIRO v. STERN REAL ESTATE INC. REMBRANDT HOTEL

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The second paragraph of Article 223 of the Labor Code states that when a judgment involving monetary award is appealed by the employer, the appeal 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. This is to assure the workers that if they finally prevail in the case, the monetary award will be given to them upon dismissal of the employer's appeal, and is meant to discourage employers from using the appeal to delay or evade payment of their obligations to the employees. [31] However, as provided for in Section 6, Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, such amount of the bond may be reduced in meritorious cases, upon motion of the appellant. The exercise of this authority is not a matter of right on the part of the movant but lies within the sound discretion of the NLRC upon showing of meritorious grounds. [32] Indeed, an unreasonable and excessive amount of bond would be oppressive and unjust, and would have the effect of depriving a party of his right to appeal. [33]

GR NO. 155146

2006-01-24

DR. PERLA A. POSTIGO v. PHILIPPINE TUBERCULOSIS SOCIETY

QUISUMBING, J.

Here, aside from the fact that the filing of the motion was justified, the respondent immediately submitted a supersedeas bond[15] with its motion for reconsideration of the NLRC resolution dismissing its appeal. In Ong v. Court of Appeals,[16] we ruled that the aggrieved party may file the appeal bond within the ten-day reglementary period following the receipt of the resolution of the NLRC to forestall the finality of such resolution.[17] Hence, while the appeal of a decision involving a monetary award in labor cases may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond and the posting of the bond is an indispensable requirement to perfect such an appeal, a relaxation of the appeal bond requirement could be justified by substantial compliance with the rule.

GR NO. 153942

2005-06-29

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. NOE LEVANTINO

TINGA, J.

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.[10]

GR No. 160730

2004-12-10

SISTER MA. ANGELINA M. FERNANDO v. CESAR D. SANTAMARIA

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.[23]

	GR No. 192394 2013-07-03	ROY D. PASOS v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
However, not only in one case has this Court relaxed this requirement in order to bring about the immediate and appropriate resolution of cases on the merits.[24] In Quiambao v. National Labor Relations Commission,[25] this Court allowed the relaxation of the requirement when there is substantial compliance with the rule. Likewise, in Ong v. Court of Appeals,[26] the Court held that the bond requirement on appeals may be relaxed when there is substantial compliance with the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC or when the appellant shows willingness to post a partial bond. The Court held that "[w]hile the bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards has been relaxed in certain cases, this can only be done where there was substantial compliance of the Rules or where the appellants, at the very least, exhibited willingness to pay by posting a partial bond."
	GR NO. 151854 2008-09-03	PHILUX v. NLRC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
While the bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards has been relaxed in certain cases, this can only be done where there was substantial compliance of the NLRC Rules of Procedure or where the appellants, at the very least, exhibited willingness to pay by posting a partial bond [32] or where the failure to comply with the requirements for perfection of appeal was justified.[33]
	GR No. 167708 2008-08-22	SECRETARY OF LABOR v. PANAY VETERAN'S SECURITY CORONA, J.
The legislative intent 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."[12] The word "only" makes it 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.[13] In one case, we held that:Anent the issue of whether or not the respondent Secretary of Labor acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's appeal on the ground that petitioner failed to post the required cash or surety bond, we rule in the negative.
	GR No. 170099 2007-11-28	COLBY CONTSRUCTION v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Time and again it has been held that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. The party who seeks to avail himself of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.[20]
	GR NO. 159372 2007-07-27	RONALDO NICOL v. FOOTJOY INDUSTRIAL CORP. CARPIO MORALES, J.
The filing of the motion to reduce bond without compliance with the requisites in the preceding paragraph shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The necessary import of the foregoing provisions is that in the case of an employer appealing the labor arbiter's decision to the NLRC, the posting of a cash or surety bond to perfect an appeal of a monetary judgment is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional, non-compliance with which has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.[19] Ong v. Court of Appeals[20] stressed: 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.[21] Be that as it may, Section 6 of Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, as amended, allows the reduction of the appeal bond. This practice-evolved rule[22] has been made explicit by Resolution 01-02, series of 2002,[23] subject to the conditions that (1) the motion to reduce the bond shall be based on meritorious grounds; and (2) a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award is posted by the appellant, otherwise the filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.
	GR NO. 166594 2006-07-20	CIUDAD FERNANDINA FOOD CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
There is no dispute regarding the instances where a more compassionate interpretation of the rules may be allowed. These instances call for the existence of meritorious grounds and substantial compliance or at the very least, a willingness to pay by posting a partial bond.[21]
	GR NO. 162233 2006-03-10	RONALDO B. CASIMIRO v. STERN REAL ESTATE INC. REMBRANDT HOTEL CALLEJO, SR., J.
The second paragraph of Article 223 of the Labor Code states that when a judgment involving monetary award is appealed by the employer, the appeal 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. This is to assure the workers that if they finally prevail in the case, the monetary award will be given to them upon dismissal of the employer's appeal, and is meant to discourage employers from using the appeal to delay or evade payment of their obligations to the employees. [31] However, as provided for in Section 6, Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, such amount of the bond may be reduced in meritorious cases, upon motion of the appellant. The exercise of this authority is not a matter of right on the part of the movant but lies within the sound discretion of the NLRC upon showing of meritorious grounds. [32] Indeed, an unreasonable and excessive amount of bond would be oppressive and unjust, and would have the effect of depriving a party of his right to appeal. [33]
	GR NO. 155146 2006-01-24	DR. PERLA A. POSTIGO v. PHILIPPINE TUBERCULOSIS SOCIETY QUISUMBING, J.
Here, aside from the fact that the filing of the motion was justified, the respondent immediately submitted a supersedeas bond[15] with its motion for reconsideration of the NLRC resolution dismissing its appeal. In Ong v. Court of Appeals,[16] we ruled that the aggrieved party may file the appeal bond within the ten-day reglementary period following the receipt of the resolution of the NLRC to forestall the finality of such resolution.[17] Hence, while the appeal of a decision involving a monetary award in labor cases may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond and the posting of the bond is an indispensable requirement to perfect such an appeal, a relaxation of the appeal bond requirement could be justified by substantial compliance with the rule.
	GR NO. 153942 2005-06-29	SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. NOE LEVANTINO TINGA, J.
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.[10]
	GR No. 160730 2004-12-10	SISTER MA. ANGELINA M. FERNANDO v. CESAR D. SANTAMARIA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.[23]

MARIANO ONG v. CA