FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 207156, January 16, 2017
TURKS SHAWARMA COMPANY/GEM ZEÑAROSA, Petitioners, v. FELICIANO Z. PAJARON AND LARRY A. CARBONILLA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
The liberal interpretation of the rules applies only to justifiable causes and meritorious circumstances.
By this Petition for Review on Certiorari,1 petitioner Turks Shawarma Company and its owner, petitioner Gem Zeñarosa (Zeñarosa), assail the May 8, 2013 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 121956, which affirmed the Orders dated March 18, 20113 and September 29, 20114 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissing their appeal on the ground of non-perfection for failure to post the required bond.
Factual Antecedents
Petitioners hired Feliciano Z. Pajaron (Pajaron) in May 2007 as service crew and Larry A. Carbonilla (Carbonilla) in April 2007 as head crew. On April 15, 2010, Pajaron and Carbonilla filed their respective Complaints5 for constructive and actual illegal dismissal, non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay, holiday premium, rest day premium, service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay against petitioners. Both Complaints were consolidated.
Pajaron alleged that on April 9, 2010, Zeñarosa asked him to sign a piece of paper6 stating that he was receiving the correct amount of wages and that he had no claims whatsoever from petitioners. Disagreeing to the truthfulness of the statements, Pajaron refused to sign the paper prompting Zeñarosa to fire him from work. Carbonilla, on the other hand, alleged that sometime in June 2008, he had an altercation with his supervisor Conchita Marcillana (Marcillana) while at work. When the incident was brought to the attention of Zeñarosa, he was immediately dismissed from service. He was also asked by Zeñarosa to sign a piece of paper acknowledging his debt amounting to P7,000.00.
Both Pajaron and Carbonilla claimed that there was no just or authorized cause for their dismissal and that petitioners also failed to comply with the requirements of due process. As such, they prayed for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement due to strained relations with petitioners and backwages as well as nominal, moral and exemplary damages. Petitioners also claimed for non payment of just wages, overtime pay, holiday pay, holiday premium, service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay.
Petitioners denied having dismissed Pajaron and Carbonilla; they averred that they actually abandoned their work. They alleged that Pajaron would habitually absent himself from work for an unreasonable length of time without notice; and while they rehired him several times whenever he returned, they refused to rehire him this time after he abandoned work in April 2009. As for Carbonilla, he was reprimanded and admonished several times for misbehavior and disobedience of lawful orders and was advised that he could freely leave his work if he could not follow instructions. Unfortunately, he left his work without any reason and without settling his unpaid obligation in the an1ount of P78,900.00, which compelled them to file a criminal case7 for estafa against him. In addition, criminal complaints8 tor slander were filed against both Pajaron and Carbonilla for uttering defamatory words that allegedly compromised Zeñarosa's reputation as a businessman. Petitioners, thus, insisted that their refusal to rehire Pajaron and Carbonilla was for valid causes and did not amount to dismissal from employment. Finally, petitioners claimed that Pajaron and Carbonilla failed to substantiate their claims that they were not paid labor standards benefits.
Proceedings before the Labor Arbiter
In a Decision9 dated December 102010, the Labor Arbiter found credible Pajaron and Carbonilla's version and held them constructively and illegally dismissed by petitioners. The Labor Arbiter found it suspicious for petitioners to file criminal cases against Pajaron and Carbonilla only after the complaints for illegal dismissal had been filed. Pajaron and Carbonilla were thus awarded the sum of P148,753.61 and P49,182.66, respectively, representing backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay, The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter's Decision reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered declaring respondent TURKS SHAWARMA COMPANY, [liable] to pay complainants as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryProceedings before the National Labor Relations Commission
I. FELICIANO Z. PAJARON, JR.II. LARRY A. CARBONILLA
- Limited backwages computed from April 9, 2010 up to the date of this Decision, in the amount of SIXTY EIGHT THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED NINETY EIGHT PESOS & 74/100 (Php68,998.74)
- Separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to one month's salary for every year of service computed from May 1, 2007 up to the date of this decision, in the amount of THIRTY ONE THOUS[A]ND FIVE HUNDRED TWELVE PESOS (Php31,512.00);chanrobleslaw
- Holiday pay, in the amount of TWELVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY ONE PESOS (Php12,681.00);chanrobleslaw
- Service incentive leave pay, in the amount of FIVE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED THREE PESOS & 46/100 (Php5,403.46); and
- Thirteenth month pay, in the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FIFTY EIGHT PESOS & 41/100 (Php30,158.41).
Other claims herein sought and prayed for are hereby denied for lack of legal and factual bases.
- Separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to one month's salary for every year of service computed from April 1, 2007 up to the date of this decision, in the amount of FORTY TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN PESOS (Php42,016.00);chanrobleslaw
- Holiday pay, in the amount of TWO THOUSAND PESOS (Php2,000.00);chanrobleslaw
- Service incentive leave pay, in the amount of EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY THREE PESOS & 33/100 (Php833.33); and
- Thirteenth month pay, in the amount of FOUR THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTY THREE PESOS & 33/100 (Php4,333.33).
SO ORDERED.10chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
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:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryMeanwhile, Sections 4 and 6 of Rule VI of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, which were in effect when petitioners filed their appeal, provide:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(a) If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter;chanrobleslaw
(b) If the decision, order or award was secured through fraud or coercion, including graft and corruption;chanrobleslaw
(c) If made purely on questions of law; and
(d) If serious errors in the finding of facts are raised which would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.
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.
x x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
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 in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, as amended; 3) in the form 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 the appellant received the appealed decision, resolution or order; 4) in three (3) legibly typewritten or printed copies; and 5) accompanied by i) proof of payment of the required appeal fee; ii) posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; iii) a certificate of non-forum shopping; and iv) proof of service upon the other parties."It is clear from both the Labor Code and the NLRC Rules of Procedure that there is legislative and administrative intent to strictly apply the appeal bond requirement, and the Court should give utmost regard to this intention."21 The posting of cash or surety bond is therefore mandatory and jurisdictional; failure to comply with this requirement renders the decision of the Labor Arbiter final and executory.22 This indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal "is to assure the workers that if they finally prevail in the case[,] the monetary award will be given to them upon the dismissal of the employer's appeal [and] is further meant to discourage employers from using the appeal to delay or evade payment of their obligations to the employees."23
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 6. Bond. - In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Regional Director involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may 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
No motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on meritorious grounds, and upon the posting of a bond in a reasonable amount. The mere filing of a motion to reduce bond without complying with the requisites in the preceding paragraphs shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.
In order to give full effect to the provisions on motion to reduce bond, the appellant must be allowed to wait for the ruling of the NLRC on the motion even beyond the 10-day period to perfect an appeal. If the NLRC grants the motion and rules that there is indeed meritorious ground and that the amount of the bond posted is reasonable, then the appeal is perfected. If the NLRC denies the motion, the appellant may still file a motion tor reconsideration as provided under Section 15, Rule VII of the Rules. If the NLRC grants the motion for reconsideration and rules that there is indeed meritorious ground and that the amount of the bond posted is reasonable, then the appeal is perfected. If the NLRC denies the motion. then the decision of the Labor Arbiter becomes final and executory.34chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryThe rulings in Garcia v. KJ Commercial35 and Mendoza v. HMS Credit Corporation36 cannot dissuade this Court from relaxing the rules. In Garcia, the NLRC initially denied the appeal of respondent therein due to the absence of meritorious grounds in its motion to reduce bond and unreasonable amount of partial bond posted. However, upon the posting of the full amount of bond when respondent filed its motion for reconsideration, the NLRC granted the motion for reconsideration on the ground of substantial compliance with the rules after considering the merits of the appeal. Likewise, in Mendoza, the NLRC initially denied respondents' Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond with a partial bond. Respondents thereafter promptly complied with the NLRC's directive to post the differential amount between the judgment award and the sum previously tendered by them. The Court held that the appeal was filed timely on account of respondents' substantial compliance with the requirements on appeal bond. In both Garcia and Mendoza, however, the NLRC took into consideration the substantial merits of the appealed cases in giving due course to the appeals. It, in fact, reversed the Labor Arbiters' rulings in both cases. In contrast, petitioners in the case at bench have no meritorious appeal as would convince this Court to liberally apply the rule.
[T]he merit of [petitioners'] case does not warrant the liberal application of the x x x rules x x x. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities and that rules of procedure shall not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial justice, it must be emphasized that procedural rules should not likewise be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance might result in prejudice to a party's substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed, except only for the most persuasive of reasons.38chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryWHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The May 8, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R SP No. 121956 is AFFIRMED.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 3-28.
2 CA rollo, pp. 454-459; penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza and concurred in by Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Ramon A. Cruz.
3 NLRC records, pp. 222-226; penned by Commissioner Perlita B. Velasco and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles and Commissioner Romeo L. Go.
4 Id. at 276-279; penned by Commissioner Perlita B. Velasco and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles.
5 Id. at 1-3 and 7-9.
6 Id. at 49.
7 Id. at 66-67.
8 Id. at 73-74 and 77-78.
9 Id. at 110-116; penned by Labor Arbiter Lutricia F. Quitevis-Alconcel.
10 Id. at 115-116.
11 Id. at 120-139.
12 Id. at 268.
13 Id. at 222-226.
14 Id. at 232-246.
15 Id. at 269.
16 Id. at 276-279.
17 CA rollo, pp. 3-25.
18 Id. at 454-459.
19Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. v. Elvira A. Villareal (deceased), 708 Phil. 443, 452 (2013).
20Ong v. Court of Appeals, 482 Phil. 170, 177 (2004).
21Colby Construction and Management Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 564 Phil. 145, 156 (2007).
22Quiambao v. National Labor Relations Commission, 324 Phil. 455, 461, 463 (1996).
23Coral Point Development Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 383 Phil. 456, 463-464 (2000).
24Nueva Ecija I Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 380 Phil. 44, 54-55 (2000).
25Times Transportation Co., Inc. v. Sotelo, 491 Phil. 756, 769 (2005).
26 719 Phil. 680, 713-714 (2013).
27 555 Phil. 275 (2007).
28 282 Phil. 80 (1992).
29 291-A Phil. 398 (1993).
30 268 Phil. 169 (1990).
31 515 Phil. 601 (2006).
32Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, 622 Phil. 782, 798 (2009).
33Nicol v. Footjoy Industrial Corporation, supra note 27 at 287.
34Garcia v. KJ Commercial, 683 Phil. 376, 389 (2012).
35 Id. at 392.
36 709 Phil. 756, 765-766 (2013).
37FLP Enterprises, Inc.-Francesco Shoes v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 198093, July 28, 2014, 731 SCRA 168, 177.
38Colegio de San Juan de Letran v. Dela Rosa-Meris, G.R. No. 178837, September 1, 2014, 734 SCRA 21, 37-38.