FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239770. August 15, 2018.]
INTER-WORLD SHIPPING CORPORATION, petitioner,vs. JUNARD O. DUMALAGAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 15, 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 239770 — Inter-World Shipping Corporation v. Junard O. Dumalagan.
The Court resolves to NOTE and GRANT the petitioner's Entry of Appearance with Motion for Extension of Time of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file its Petition for Review on Certiorari.
This Court has carefully reviewed the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari and further resolves to DENY the same for: (1) raising factual issues; and, (2) failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 153752.
While this Court agrees with petitioner's claim that the CA incorrectly ruled that the failure to post at least 10% of the judgment award rendered the Labor Arbiter's decision final and executory in view of our ruling in Garcia v. KJ Commercial, 1 a perusal of the National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) Decision dated July 24, 2017 shows that petitioner's appeal was denied for failure to comply with both requirements of posting a bond in a reasonable amount and showing a meritorious ground for such appeal. We quote the NLRC's Decision with approval, to wit:
Anent the determination of compliance with the second requirement, meritorious ground, in this case [petitioner, Vazen Commercial Broker LLC (Vazen), and dela Calzada 2 (dela Calzada)] assert they are not in the position to post the complete bond, we need not emphasize the necessity for such assertion must be proven by the required quantum of evidence. The recognized rule is that, in labor cases as in other administrative proceedings, substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion, is required. aScITE
Perusing respondent's motion, other than their bare allegation of financial difficulties and/or incapacity, [petitioner] failed to adduce any proof to support the same.
Consequently, in the absence of any supporting evidence that [petitioner, Vazen, and dela Calzada] are financially incapable to post the complete amount of [the] bond, We cannot give credence to their bare assertion that they are not in the position to put up the complete amount of bond so as to warrant reduction of the appeal bond. Such bare assertion [does] not constitute "evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion," that [petitioner, Vazen, and dela Calzada] have indeed sustained business or financial reverses to merit excuse from the payment of the full amount of the appeal bond required under the Labor Code, the NLRC Rules and established jurisprudence.
[Petitioner, Vazen, and dela Calzada] likewise argue that their motion to reduce bond is founded on [a] meritorious ground: the merit of their appeal. They insist that there is no valid basis for the award considering that [respondent] is not entitled to disability benefits as his illness is not work-related.
xxx xxx xxx
In this case, the only piece of evidence presented by [petitioner, Vazen, and dela Calzada] to refute the work-relatedness of [respondent's] illness is a letter communication from the captain of the vessel where complainant embarked stating that there was no accident or unusual incidents (sic) that happened aboard the vessel during [respondent's] employment and that he was never forced to do any extra watching or anything more than his daily duties. [Petitioner, Vazen, and dela Calzada] never presented the assessment of the company-designated physician of [respondent's] illness. Neither was there any categorical declaration from the company[-]designated physician that [respondent's] illness is not work-related. On the contrary, [respondent] presented the assessment of his another physician 3(sic) declaring that his illness may have been brought about or aggravated by the nature of his work. [Petitioner, Vazen, and dela Calzada] clearly failed to refute the presumption of compensability of [respondent's] claim. 4 (Emphasis and italics in the original. Underscoring supplied. Citations omitted.) HEITAD
The same factual finding was made by the CA when it ruled that "[t]he motion was not predicated on meritorious and reasonable grounds" 5 due to petitioner's failure to substantiate its claim of financial difficulty or incapacity. It is worthy to note that the Petition for Certiorari filed before the CA was likewise fraught with procedural defects. Nevertheless, the CA was sympathetic enough to rule on the merits of petitioner's case. Petitioner's insistence that this Court review the merits of its case a third time around violates the principle against raising questions of fact in petitions for review on certiorari. In any case, we see no reason to overturn the factual findings of the National Labor Relations Commission, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the Resolutions dated January 12, 2018 and May 17, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 153752.
The Court of Appeals is DELETED as party respondent in this case pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
SO ORDERED." Peralta, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2582 (Revised) dated August 8, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 683 Phil. 376, 389 (2012) where this Court held:
The NLRC has full discretion to grant or deny the motion to reduce bond, and it may rule on the motion beyond the 10-day period within which to perfect an appeal. Obviously, at the time of the filing of the motion to reduce bond and posting of a bond in a reasonable amount, there is no assurance whether the appellant's motion is indeed based on "meritorious ground" and whether the bond he or she posted is of a "reasonable amount." Thus, the appellant always runs the risk of failing to perfect an appeal.
Section 2, Article I of the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC states that, "These Rules shall be liberally construed to carry out the objectives of the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines and other relevant legislations, and to assist the parties in obtaining just, expeditious and inexpensive resolution and settlement of labor disputes." 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 for 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. (Emphasis supplied. Citation omitted.)
2. Vazen Commercial Broker LLC. and Ryan N. dela Calzada are petitioner's co-respondents in the labor proceedings.
3. Should be the company-designated physician as stated in the Labor Arbiter's April 18, 2017 Decision, rollo, p. 115.
4.Id. at 135-138.
5.Id. at 38.