FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 215218. June 18, 2018.]
U R EMPLOYED INT'L. CORP. AND PAMELA T. MIGUEL, petitioners,vs. MURPHY MENZI, ALEJANDRO EMINGAN, CHRISTOPHER CADIOGAN, EDISON SAGUIPIL, JORDAN AGTULAO, DEXTER KEBENG, PRIMO PAKRAY, DONEL BUMACAS, SHALOME PALITOKEN, BENITO STEVEN, JONATHAN BULALIN, AND PRUDENCIO APAYAO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 18, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 215218 (U R Employed Int'l. Corp. and Pamela T. Miguel, v. Murphy Menzi, Alejandro Emingan, Christopher Cadiogan, Edison Saguipil, Jordan Agtulao, Dexter Kebeng, Primo Pakray, Donel Bumacas, Shalome Palitoken, Benito Steven, Jonathan Bulalin, and Prudencio Apayao).
For review is the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated May 19, 2014 1 and October 7, 2014 2 in CA-GR SP No. 133704, dismissing the petition for certiorari filed before it by U R Employed Int'l. Corp. (petitioner).
Private respondents filed a case for constructive illegal dismissal, praying for payment of salaries for the unexpired portion of their contracts, reimbursement of placement fees with interest, award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees against the petitioner. TAIaHE
Private respondents alleged that they were hired as construction workers by the petitioner to be deployed to Sabah, Malaysia. During the recruitment, they were promised a salary of 800 RM (Ringgit), free suitable housing and food, free medical including medicine, and free transportation to the site employment. 3 These were embodied in the employment contracts they signed. 4
Before their flight to Sabah, Malaysia, in May 2011, private respondents were given pass notes together with their Philippine passports. Upon their arrival, their passports were taken by the broker of W Construction Corporation SDN BHD. They were also made to sign another contract as "general labour." 5
They lamented that their working conditions were inhumane because the food provided to them were insufficient and at times already spoiled; the water given to them was not suitable for drinking; the accommodations provided was crowded and had no ventilation; and only two comfort rooms were provided for the use of two hundred workers. They claimed that because of their living conditions, they were always sick but no medicine was given except for "panadol." They also claimed that they were made to work beyond the regular working hours without being paid. 6
One of their co-workers, Ryan Ayochok (Ayochok), sent an email to the editor of the Baguio Midland Courier asking for assistance as they were on the verge of starvation and their salaries were being withheld. Ayochok was later dismissed and arrived in the Philippines on October 5, 2011. Within the same month, Ayochok went to the POEA to report their poor working conditions. The private respondents were repatriated thereafter, and they filed their complaints as well. 7
Petitioner denied the allegations against them and stated that the private respondents were either separated for just cause; voluntarily resigned; or opted for repatriation pending investigation by the POEA of the allegations of Ayochok. 8 They denied that the living conditions were as described by private respondents.
In a Decision dated December 28, 2012, 9 the Labor Arbiter found that private respondents were illegally dismissed.
Aggrieved by the findings, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal 10 and an Appeal Memorandum. 11 In its Notice of Appeal, petitioner indicated that:
The corresponding legal research and the deposit fees have been duly paid via Postal Money Orders and issued to NLRC-CAR and the Appeal Memorandum is herewith submitted.
However, as to the Appeal Bond, undersigned Counsel most respectfully and honestly manifests that her client UREIC can no longer post the said amount as it was already denied renewal of its license by the POEA. Thus, UREIC is no longer operational. It has consumed all its resources after it has used up its entire escrow bond to post the necessary appeal bond in the other companion cases filed by herein Complainants-Appelees (sic) and the other Baguio group, and it has no other means to post the same. cDHAES
Nonetheless, undersigned Counsel most respectfully pray of this honourable office for its kindest consideration, in the interest of justice, for it to give merit to this appeal. 12
The NLRC, in an Order dated June 28, 2013, 13 dismissed the appeal for non-perfection of the same for failure to post a cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award. The NLRC likewise dismissed petitioner's motion for reconsideration. 14
Undeterred, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA. The CA, however, in the assailed resolution 15 dated May 19, 2014, dismissed the petition for failure to submit copies of pertinent pleadings and documents relevant to the said petition, despite its directive to do so.
Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration, ratiocinating that it was of the belief that "only the pleadings from petitioner's end were required"16 which is why it did not include the pleadings filed by the private respondents. It then attached therewith all records and pleadings.
The CA, however, still denied the motion for reconsideration, in the assailed resolution dated October 7, 2014. 17
Petitioner now raises before Us the issues it raised before the NLRC and the CA, questioning the decision rendered by the Labor Arbiter against it. It further questions the dismissal of the NLRC for the non-perfection of its appeal, and the CA's dismissal of its petition on certiorari on a technicality.
The petition for review has no merit.
The case of Turks Shawarma Company/Gem Zeñarosa vs. Feliciano Pajaron and Larry A. Carbonilla18 made a thorough discussion on the issue of non-perfection of an appeal at the level of the NLRC as follows:
The Court has time and again held that "[t]he right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the 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." (Emphasis ours) ASEcHI
Article 223 of the Labor Code, which sets forth the rules on appeal from the Labor Arbiter's monetary award, provides:
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 off (sic) the following grounds:
(a) If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter;
(b) If the decision, order or award was secured through fraud or coercion, including graft and corruption;
(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. (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx.
Sections 4 and 6 of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure likewise provides that the perfection of an appeal requires the posting of a bond, thus:
SECTION 4. REQUISITES FOR PERFECTION OF APPEAL. —
a) The appeal shall be:
(1) filed within the reglementary period provided in Section 1 of this Rule;
(2) verified by the appellant himself/herself 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, award or order;
(4) in three (3) legibly typewritten or printed copies; and
(5) accompanied by:
i) proof of payment of the required appeal fee and legal research fee;
ii) posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; and
iii) proof of service upon the other parties. ITAaHc
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.
c) The appellee may file with the Regional Arbitration Branch or Regional Office where the appeal was filed, his/her answer or reply to appellant's memorandum of appeal, not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof. Failure on the part of the appellee who was properly furnished with a copy of the appeal to file his/her answer or reply within the said period may be construed as a waiver on his/her part to file the same.
d) Subject to the provisions of Article 218 (now 225) of the Labor Code, as amended, once the appeal is perfected in accordance with these Rules, the Commission shall limit itself to reviewing and deciding only the specific issues that were elevated on appeal.
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.
xxx xxx xxx
Under the Rules, appeals involving monetary awards are perfected only upon compliance with the following mandatory requisites, namely: (1) payment of the appeal fees; (2) filing of the memorandum of appeal; and (3) payment of the required cash or surety bond. 19 cSaATC
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. 20 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. 21 The posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases involving monetary awards from the decision of the labor arbiter. 22 The intention of the lawmakers to make the bond a mandatory requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer is clearly expressed in the provision that an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. 23
In the case of Ciudad Fernandina Food Corporation Employees Union-Associated Labor Unions, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, 24 the Court explained:
It is true that, in some cases, this Court relaxed the requirement of posting supersedeas bond for the perfection of an appeal. But the decisions in those cases were justified by the fact that there was substantial compliance with the rule, so that on balance, technical considerations had to give way to considerations of equity and justice. 25
Here, petitioner's notice of appeal stating that it had already consumed all its resources in the other cases cannot be deemed to be meritorious enough of a reason to do away with the requirement of the posting of a bond to perfect an appeal. Financial difficulties cannot be said to be meritorious especially when "the law does not require outright payment of the total monetary award; [the appellant has the option to post either a cash or surety bond. In the latter case, appellant must pay only a] moderate and reasonable sum for the premium to ensure that the award will be eventually paid should the appeal fail." 26
We further note that coupled with the failure to file the bond with the NLRC, petitioner failed to file the requisite pleadings before the CA, prompting the latter to dismiss the petition for certiorari.
Indeed, as correctly stated by the CA in the assailed resolution dated October 7, 2014, Section 3, Rule 46, 27 in relation to Section 1 of Rule 65 28 of the Rules of Court is explicit that copies of all pleadings and documents and relevant and pertinent thereto shall accompany the petition, and that failure to do so shall constitute sufficient ground to dismiss the same. The CA, in fact, did not dismiss the petition at the first instance and gave the petitioner an opportunity to rectify the same by directing it to do so in a Resolution dated February 26, 2014. 29 Despite the said directive, however, petitioner still failed to furnish the CA the pertinent documents necessary for the review of the petition for certiorari. In its motion for reconsideration, petitioner gave the feeble excuse that it thought it was only required to submit the documents it submitted before the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, and not the pleadings filed by the private respondents as well. We note that the petitioner was in fact assisted by counsel, who ought to know the rules of procedure and that it would be impossible for any court to make a complete appreciation of facts and ruling on the basis of only one party's pleadings submitted in the proceedings below.
Even if the case was given due course, however, petitioner's case would still fail. The Labor Arbiter's findings that the private respondents were illegally dismissed were correct. With their original contracts substituted and their oppressive working and living conditions unmitigated or unresolved, the private respondents' decision to resign is not surprising. They were compelled by the dismal state of their employment to give up their jobs; effectively, they were constructively dismissed. 30 A constructive dismissal or discharge is defined as "a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay. 31 cHDAIS
WHEREFORE, this Court DENIES the Petition for Review on Certiorari. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated May 19, 2014 and October 7, 2014 in CA-GR SP No. 133704 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 42-43.
2.Id. at 235-237.
3.Id. at 148-149.
4. See sample. Id. at 180-183.
5.Id. at 149.
6.Id. at 150.
7.Id. at 151.
8.Id. at 312-314.
9. Penned by Labor Arbiter Monroe C. Tabingan. Id. at 499-508.
10.Id. at 457-458.
11.Id. at 461-469.
12.Id. at 457.
13.Id. at 276-277.
14.Id. at 271-272.
15.Id. at 42-43.
16.Id. at 47.
17.Id. at 235-237.
18. G.R. No. 207156, January 16, 2017.
19.Ramirez v. Court of Appeal, 622 Phil. 782, 795 (2009).
20.Colby Construction and Mgmt. Corp. and/or Lo v. NLRC, 564 Phil. 145, 156 (2007).
21.Id.
22.Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, supra at 795.
23.University Plans Incorporated v. Solano, et al., 667 Phil. 623, 634 (2011).
24. 528 Phil. 415 (2006).
25.Id. at 427.
26.Turks Shawarma Company v. Pajaron, supra note 18.
27.Section 3.Contents and filing of petition; effect of noncompliance with requirements. — The petition shall contain the full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of the matters involved, the factual background of the case, and the grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for.
In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received.
It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with proof of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy intended for the court indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. The certification shall be accomplished by the proper clerk of court or by his duly authorized representative, or by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or by his duly authorized representative. The other requisite number of copies of the petition shall be accompanied by clearly legible plain copies of all documents attached to the original.
The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a sworn certification that he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.
The petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs at the time of the filing of the petition.
The failure of the petitioner to comply any of the requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. (Emphasis ours)
28. Section 1.Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (Emphasis ours)
29. Rollo, p. 516.
30. PERT/CPMManpower Exponent Co., Inc. v. Vinuya, et al., 694 Phil. 426 (2012).
31. Portuguez v. GSIS Family Bank, 546 Phil. 140, 153 (2007)