Renjamel Security Agency v. Baradillo

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 261284. January 11, 2023.]

RENJAMEL SECURITY AGENCY AND/OR RENE J. ELUMBARING, ALEXANDRA MINING AND OIL VENTURE, INC., petitioners, vs. JONALYN L. BARADILLO, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 11, 2023 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 261284 (Renjamel Security Agency and/or Rene J. Elumbaring, Alexandra Mining and Oil Venture, Inc. v. Jonalyn L. Baradillo). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari1 and AFFIRM the Decision 2 dated 12 March 2021 and the Resolution 3 dated 16 March 2022, both rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 09651-MIN for failure of petitioners Renjamel Security Agency and/or Rene J. Elumbaring (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing their Petition for Certiorari.

Petitioners bewail the dismissal of their appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), as affirmed by the CA, due to non-perfection. In denying the Motion to Reduce Bond, the NLRC ratiocinated that petitioners failed to justify their claim of lack of financial capability to pay a substantial or the full amount of the bond as they merely presented demand letters and their collectibles. As a result, petitioners' appeal was not perfected. 4

The Court in Manrique v. Delta Earthmoving, Inc.5 explained that 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.

The determination of the existence of a "meritorious ground" takes into account the respective rights of the parties and the attending circumstances. By jurisprudence, the merit referred to may pertain to the appellant's lack of financial capacity 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. 6 More importantly, the determination of the presence of "meritorious ground" is a matter fully within the discretion of the NLRC. 7

Considering that petitioners' Motion to Reduce Bond was not predicated on meritorious and reasonable grounds due to their failure to substantiate their claim of financial difficulty or incapacity, We see no reason to overturn the factual findings of the NLRC, as affirmed by the CA.

Nonetheless, We find the need to modify the rulings of the NLRC and the CA to include the imposition of legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on the total monetary awards from finality of this Resolution until fully satisfied. 8

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 12 March 2021 and the Resolution dated 16 March 2022 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 09651-MIN are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the monetary awards shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

SO ORDERED." Hernando, J., on leave. CAIHTE

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 6-34.

2. Id. at 36-45; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren and concurred in by Associate Justices Loida S. Posadas-Kahulugan and Anisah B. Amanodin-Umpa.

3. Id. at 52-54; penned by Associate Justice Anisah B. Amanodin-Umpa and concurred in by Associate Justices Evalyn Arellano-Morales and Loida S. Posadas-Kahulugan.

4. Id. at 70-71.

5. G.R. No. 229429, 09 November 2020, citing McBurnie v. Ganzon, 719 Phil. 680, 707 (2013).

6. Pacios v. Tahanang Walang Hagdanan, 843 Phil. 312 (2018).

7. Id.

8. Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).