FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231740. July 7, 2020.]
DON MARIANO TRANSIT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. REYNALDO E. BILBAO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 7, 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 231740 — DON MARIANO TRANSIT CORPORATION, petitioner, versus REYNALDO E. BILBAO, respondent.
The right to appeal is a mere privilege that may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the applicable law. Thus, a party who seeks to appeal must comply with the requirements of the rules. Otherwise, this right is invariably lost. 1
ANTECEDENTS
In 2002, Don Mariano Transit Corporation (DMTC) hired Reynaldo Bilbao as a bus driver. Sometime in April 2011, Reynaldo reported for work but the operations manager told him to go home. Thereafter, Reynaldo learned that the bus assigned to him was already being driven by another employee. Notwithstanding, Reynaldo continued reporting for work hoping to get another assignment. Yet, none was given to him. In September 2011, Reynaldo dropped by the company garage to ask for an update about his driving schedule but he was handed a letter terminating his employment. Aggrieved, Reynaldo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against DMTC. On the other hand, DMTC claimed that Reynaldo abandoned his work.
In due course, the Labor Arbiter (LA) found that Reynaldo was illegally dismissed and awarded him P390,643.76 backwages, P31,512.00 separation pay, and P42,215.57 attorney's fees. 2 After receipt of the LA's Decision, DMTC filed an Urgent Motion 3 to reduce appeal bond, on the ground that the award is baseless and contains bloated figures. DMTC then prayed that the case be transmitted to the National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) Computation & Examination Unit for the correct assessment of the monetary award, which in turn, will be the basis for the appeal bond. On March 16, 2015, DMTC filed its Notice of Appeal, 4 along with a postal money order in the amount of P92,875.00 5 as payment of the appeal bond.
In an Order 6 dated May 19, 2015, the NLRC held that while the amount of P92,875.00 paid by DMTC is reasonable and sufficient to support the motion to reduce bond, the motion itself is not based on meritorious grounds. Corollarily, the NLRC denied the prayer for reduction of bond as DMTC merely relied on the general assumption that the LA's ruling is erroneous. The NLRC then gave DMTC a non-extendible period of ten days from notice to post the full amount of appeal bond by paying the additional amount of P329,280.76.
DMTC sought reconsideration 7 and prayed for the inhibition of NLRC Commissioner Nieves V. De Castro. On June 30, 2015, 8 the NLRC denied the motion to inhibit for lack of merit. Likewise, it noted that the last day for DMTC to pay the additional bond is on June 1, 2015 but DMTC failed to comply. Accordingly, the NLRC dismissed DMTC's appeal for non-perfection. On September 21, 2015, the NLRC denied DMTC's motion for reconsideration. 9
DMTC elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 142431. On November 25, 2016, the CA sustained the NLRC's ruling. 10 Hence, this petition. DMTC faults the CA for its narrow and strict application of the rules and argued that the NLRC should resolve the merits of the case.
RULING
Appeals in labor cases are governed by Article 229 [formerly Article 223] of the Labor Code which provides:
ARTICLE 229. [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
xxx xxx xxx
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.
The indispensable nature of the posting of a bond in appeals from the LA to the NLRC is further highlighted in Section 4 (b) Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, which states that: "A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal." Moreover, the posting by the employer of a cash or surety bond is mandatory as it is apparently intended to assure the workers that if they prevail in the case, they will receive the money judgment in their favor upon the dismissal of the employer's appeal. The requirement was designed to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay, or even evade, their obligation to satisfy their employees' just and lawful claims. 11
In this case, after its notice of appeal, DMTC filed a motion to reduce appeal bond, accompanied by the posting of the amount of P92,875.00. This is allowed under Section 6, Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure. As McBurnie v. Ganzon, et al. 12 aptly explained, in order to stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal, a motion to reduce bond must comply with two conditions: (1) that the motion to reduce bond shall be based on meritorious grounds; and (2) a reasonable amount of bond in relation to the monetary award is posted by the appellant.
However, DMTC expected that the mere posting of the P92,875.00 appeal bond would automatically convince the NLRC to grant its motion to reduce bond. This is not the case as the motion itself must contain a meritorious ground. The determination of existence of a "meritorious ground" takes into account the respective rights of the parties and the attending circumstances. The merit referred to may pertain to the appellant's lack of financial capability to pay the full amount of the bond, the merits of the main appeal such as when there is a valid claim that there was no illegal dismissal to justify the award, the absence of an employer-employee relationship, prescription of claims, and other similarly valid issues that are raised in the appeal. More importantly, the determination of the presence of a "meritorious ground" is a matter fully within the discretion of the NLRC. 13
Here, DMTC's motion to reduce bond failed to comply with the twin requirements in McBurnie as it merely harped on the supposed bloated figures in LA's award. In fact, the CA correctly pointed out that DMTC only claimed its unhealthy state of business for the years 2013 and 2014 as basis for the motion to reduce bond when the NLRC already denied its motion. Even then, the CA held that having been in the business for a number of years, it can hardly be believed that two years of operating loss would prevent DMTC from posting the full amount of appeal bond. This is especially true when the rules allow the posting of a surety bond wherein only a fraction of the entire amount needs to be shelled out to cover the premium payment.
In sum, an employer's failure to post the required bond demonstrates its unwillingness to ensure the satisfaction of its workers' valid claims. 14 This, coupled with DMTC's defiance of the NLRC's order to post additional bond, is sufficient reason for this Court to deny the instant petition.
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated November 25, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 142431 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Philux, Inc., et al. v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., 586 Phil. 19 (2008).
2. Rollo, pp. 39-40. The Labor Arbiter's Decision disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding complainant to have been illegally dismissed. Respondent Don Mariano Transit Corporation is hereby ordered to pay the complainant backwages amounting to P390,643.76; separation pay equivalent to P31,512.00; and attorney's fees in the sum of P42,215.57.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED.
3.Id. at 102-107.
4.Id. at 41-42.
5.Id. at 43-60.
6.Id. at 113-117.
7.Id. at 120-130.
8.Id. at 143-144.
9.Id. at 158-159.
10.Id. at 189-200; penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Leoncia R. Dimagiba.
11.Philux, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra note 1, citing Viron Garments Mftg., Co., Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 97357, March 18, 1992, 207 SCRA 339, 342.
12. 616 Phil. 629, 639 (2009) and 719 Phil. 680, 695 (2013).
13.Pacios v. Tahanang Walang Hagdanan, G.R. No. 229579, November 14, 2018.
14.University Plans Incorporated v. Solano, et al., 667 Phil. 623 (2011).