CASE DIGEST: Co Say Coco v. Baltasar
G.R. No. 188828 March 5, 2014
CO SAY COCO PRODUCTS PHILS., INC., TANAWAN PORT SERVICES, EFREN CO SAY AND YVETTE SALAZAR, Petitioners, v. BENJAMIN BALTASAR, MARVIN A. BALTASAR, RAYMUNDO A. BOTALON, NILO B. BORDEOS, JR., CARLO B. BOTALON AND GERONIMO B. BAS, Respondents
PEREZ,J
FACTS:
Tanawan Port employed respondents Benjamin Baltasar as Manager, Marvin Baltasar as Computer Operator, Raymundo Botalon as Crane Operator, Nilo Bordeos, Jr. as Crane Helper, Carlo Botalon as Crane Operator and Geronimo Bas as Fork Lift Operator.
Due to lack of clientele, the business venture of Tanawan Port failed to gain momentum causing serious alarm to the company. A couple of months after respondents were hired, Tanawan Port decided to cease operation.
Efforts to revive the business, however, proved to be futile constraining the company to finally discontinue its operation and close its business. As a result, respondents were terminated from employment but were accordingly given their corresponding separation pay and 13th month pay
Barely a month after they received their separation pay, respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal and non-payment of labor standard benefits against petitioners Tanawan Port, Salazar, Co Say and Efren Co Say before the Labor Arbiter.
The LA ruled in favor of respondents holding petitioners liable for illegal dismissal. NLRC reversed the LA decision, the NLRC in its Decision dated 31 May 2004, held that respondents severance from employment was not illegal, as the company where they were working closed due to business losses, and, the closure of business or establishment is one of the authorized causes recognized by law in dismissing an employee.
The CA reversed the NLRC decision due to failure of petitioners to perfect an appeal when the latter posted an appeal bond after the period to appeal expired. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals ruled that the NLRC has no authority to alter, modify or reverse the Labor Arbiter decision after the said decision became final and executory.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in reversing the NLRC decision
HELD: No. Decision of CA sustained
Remedial Law and Labor Law: Failure to perfect an appeal makes the judgment final and executory. Issuance of a bond is different from posting of the bond.
The pertinent rule on the matter is Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended, which sets forth the rules on appeal from the Labor Arbiters monetary award. Statutory and regulatory provisions explicitly provide that an appeal from the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC must be perfected within ten calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter. In a judgment involving a monetary award, the appeal shall be perfected only upon; (1) proof of payment of the required appeal fee; (2) posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company; and (3) filing of a memorandum of appeal.
In the present case, no appeal was perfected by the petitioners within the 10-day period under Article 223 of the Labor Code.
The petitioners received the 7 August 2003 Decision of the Labor Arbiter on 15 September 2003, hence, they had until 25 September 2003 to perfect their appeal. While the First Certification indicated that no appeal bond has been posted as of 2 October 2003, the Second Certification and the transmittal Letter stated that a surety bond was posted on 24 September 2003.
In a seeming attempt to avoid the direct fact of untimeliness in the First Certificate, the Second Certificate mentions two dates, one which is within the 10-day period and the other, the late date of 28 October 2003 which is even beyond the 2 October 2003 issuance of the First Certificate. The first date, 24 September 2003 was depicted in the Second Certificate as the date of posting while the date 28 October 2003 was described as the date of receipt by the DOLE-RAB. Apart from saying that the appeal bond was timely posted on 24 September 2003, the Second Certification would also justify why on the date of the First Certification, 2 October 2003, there was yet no posted appeal bond on record, the reason, although unstated being that the posted bond was received only on 28 October 2003.
The second certification merely states that the surety bond was issued on the 24th of September but insofar as appeal bond is concerned, issuance is not equivalent to posting; and even if it so, posting of the surety bond alone would not suffice.
This is evident from the provisions on Bond in the NLRC Rules of Procedure, which provides:
Rules on perfection of an appeal, particularly in labor cases, must be strictly construed because to extend the period of the appeal is to delay the case, a circumstance which would give the employer a chance to wear out the efforts and meager resources of the worker to the point that the latter is constrained to give up for less than what is due him.
CO SAY COCO PRODUCTS PHILS., INC., TANAWAN PORT SERVICES, EFREN CO SAY AND YVETTE SALAZAR, Petitioners, v. BENJAMIN BALTASAR, MARVIN A. BALTASAR, RAYMUNDO A. BOTALON, NILO B. BORDEOS, JR., CARLO B. BOTALON AND GERONIMO B. BAS, Respondents
PEREZ,J
FACTS:
Tanawan Port employed respondents Benjamin Baltasar as Manager, Marvin Baltasar as Computer Operator, Raymundo Botalon as Crane Operator, Nilo Bordeos, Jr. as Crane Helper, Carlo Botalon as Crane Operator and Geronimo Bas as Fork Lift Operator.
Due to lack of clientele, the business venture of Tanawan Port failed to gain momentum causing serious alarm to the company. A couple of months after respondents were hired, Tanawan Port decided to cease operation.
Efforts to revive the business, however, proved to be futile constraining the company to finally discontinue its operation and close its business. As a result, respondents were terminated from employment but were accordingly given their corresponding separation pay and 13th month pay
Barely a month after they received their separation pay, respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal and non-payment of labor standard benefits against petitioners Tanawan Port, Salazar, Co Say and Efren Co Say before the Labor Arbiter.
The LA ruled in favor of respondents holding petitioners liable for illegal dismissal. NLRC reversed the LA decision, the NLRC in its Decision dated 31 May 2004, held that respondents severance from employment was not illegal, as the company where they were working closed due to business losses, and, the closure of business or establishment is one of the authorized causes recognized by law in dismissing an employee.
The CA reversed the NLRC decision due to failure of petitioners to perfect an appeal when the latter posted an appeal bond after the period to appeal expired. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals ruled that the NLRC has no authority to alter, modify or reverse the Labor Arbiter decision after the said decision became final and executory.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in reversing the NLRC decision
HELD: No. Decision of CA sustained
Remedial Law and Labor Law: Failure to perfect an appeal makes the judgment final and executory. Issuance of a bond is different from posting of the bond.
The pertinent rule on the matter is Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended, which sets forth the rules on appeal from the Labor Arbiters monetary award. Statutory and regulatory provisions explicitly provide that an appeal from the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC must be perfected within ten calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter. In a judgment involving a monetary award, the appeal shall be perfected only upon; (1) proof of payment of the required appeal fee; (2) posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company; and (3) filing of a memorandum of appeal.
In the present case, no appeal was perfected by the petitioners within the 10-day period under Article 223 of the Labor Code.
The petitioners received the 7 August 2003 Decision of the Labor Arbiter on 15 September 2003, hence, they had until 25 September 2003 to perfect their appeal. While the First Certification indicated that no appeal bond has been posted as of 2 October 2003, the Second Certification and the transmittal Letter stated that a surety bond was posted on 24 September 2003.
In a seeming attempt to avoid the direct fact of untimeliness in the First Certificate, the Second Certificate mentions two dates, one which is within the 10-day period and the other, the late date of 28 October 2003 which is even beyond the 2 October 2003 issuance of the First Certificate. The first date, 24 September 2003 was depicted in the Second Certificate as the date of posting while the date 28 October 2003 was described as the date of receipt by the DOLE-RAB. Apart from saying that the appeal bond was timely posted on 24 September 2003, the Second Certification would also justify why on the date of the First Certification, 2 October 2003, there was yet no posted appeal bond on record, the reason, although unstated being that the posted bond was received only on 28 October 2003.
The second certification merely states that the surety bond was issued on the 24th of September but insofar as appeal bond is concerned, issuance is not equivalent to posting; and even if it so, posting of the surety bond alone would not suffice.
This is evident from the provisions on Bond in the NLRC Rules of Procedure, which provides:
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.
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.
Rules on perfection of an appeal, particularly in labor cases, must be strictly construed because to extend the period of the appeal is to delay the case, a circumstance which would give the employer a chance to wear out the efforts and meager resources of the worker to the point that the latter is constrained to give up for less than what is due him.
