Case Digest: McBurnie v. Ganzon
G.R. Nos. 178034 & 178117/G.R. Nos. 186984-85 : OCTOBER 17, 2013
ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE, Petitioner, v. EULALIO GANZON, EGI-MANAGERS, INC. and E. GANZON, INC., Respondents.
REYES, J.:
FACTS:
On October 4, 2002, Andrew James McBurnie (McBurnie), an Australian national, instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims against Eulalio Ganzon, EGI-Managers, Inc., and E. Ganzon, Inc., (respondents). McBurnie claimed that on May 11, 1999, he signed a 5-year employment agreement with the company EGI as an Executive Vice-President who shall oversee the management of the company hotels and resorts within the Philippines. He performed work for the company until sometime in November 1999, when he figured in an accident that compelled him to go back to Australia while recuperating from his injuries. While in Australia, he was informed by respondent Ganzon that his services were no longer needed because their intended project would no longer push through.
The respondents contend that their agreement with McBurnie was to jointly invest in and establish a company for the management of the hotels. They did not intend to create an employer-employee relationship, and the execution of the employment contract that was being invoked by McBurnie was solely for the purpose of allowing McBurnie to obtain an alien work permit in the Philippines, and that McBurnie had not obtained a work permit.
On September 30, 2004, the Labor Arbiter (LA) declared McBurnie as having been illegally dismissed from employment. The respondents filed their Memorandum of Appeal and Motion to Reduce Bond, and posted an appeal bond in the amount of P100,000.00. They claimed that an award of more than P60 Million Pesos to a single foreigner who had no work permit and who left the country for good one month after the purported commencement of his employment was a patent nullity.
On March 31, 2005, the NLRC denied the motion to reduce bond explaining that in cases involving monetary award, an employer seeking to appeal the LA decision to the Commission is unconditionally required by Art. 223, Labor Code to post bond equivalent to the monetary award.
The motion for reconsideration was denied, the respondents appealed to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (with extremely urgent prayer for the issuance of a Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order) docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 90845.
The NLRC dismissed their appeal due to respondent's failure to post the required additional bond. The respondents motion for reconsideration was denied on June 30, 2006. This prompted respondents to filed with the CA the Petition for Certiorari docketed as CA-G.R SP No. 95916, which was later consolidated with CA-G.R. SP No. 90845
The CA granted the respondent's application for a writ of preliminary injunction on February 16, 2007. It directed the NLRC, McBurnie, and all persons acting for and under their authority to refrain from causing the execution and enforcement of the LA decision in favor of McBurnie, conditioned upon the respondents posting of a bond in the amount of P10,000,000.00. The reconsideration of issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction sought by McBurnie was denied by the CA.
McBurnie filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari (G.R. Nos. 178034 and 178117) assailing the CA resolutions that granted the respondent's; application for the injunctive writ. On July 4, 2007, the Court denied the petition. A motion for reconsideration was denied with a finality on October 7, 2007.
McBurnie filed a Motion for Leave (1) To File Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration and (2) to Admit the Attached Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, a prohibited pleading under Section 2, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court. Thus, the motion for leave was denied by the Court and the July 4, 2007 became final and executor on November 13, 2007.
On October 27, 2008, the CA ruled on the merits of CA-G.R. SP No. 90845 and CA-G.R. SP No. 95916 and rendered a decision allowing the respondent's motion to reduce appeal bond and directing the NLRC to give due course to their appeal. The CA also ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in immediately denying the motion without fixing an appeal bond in an amount that was reasonable, as it denied the respondents of their right to appeal from the decision of the LA.
McBurnie filed a motion for reconsideration. The respondents moved that the appeal be resolved on the merits by the CA. The CA denied both motions. McBurnie then filed with the Supreme Court the Petition for Review on Certiorari (G.R. Nos. 186984-85)
The NLRC, acting on the CA order of remand, accepted the appeal from the LA decision and reversed and set aside the decision of the LA, and entered a new on dismissing McBurnie complaint.
On September 18, 2009, the third division of this court rendered its decision granting respondents motion to reduce appeal bond. This Court also reinstated and affirmed the NLRC decision dismissing respondent's appeal for failure to perfect an appeal and denying their motion for reconsideration. The aforementioned decision became final and executor on March 14, 2012.
The respondents filed a Motion for Leave to File Attached Third Motion for Reconsideration, with an attached Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Refer These Cases to the Honorable Court En Banc. The Court En Banc accepted the case from the third division and issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the implementation of the LA Decision. McBurnie filed a Motion for Reconsideration where he invoked that the Court September 18, 2009 decision had become final and executor.
ISSUE: Whether or not McBurnie was illegally dismissed?
HELD: There was no employer-employee relationship.
REMEDIAL LAW: second motion for reconsideration
At the outset, the Court emphasizes that second and subsequent motions for reconsideration are, as a general rule, prohibited.Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court provides that n]o second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained. The rule rests on the basic tenet of immutability of judgments.t some point, a decision becomes final and executory and, consequently, all litigations must come to an end./span>
The general rule, however, against second and subsequent motions for reconsideration admits of settled exceptions. In a line of cases, the Court has then entertained and granted second motions for reconsideration n the higher interest of substantial justice,as allowed under the Internal Rules when the assailed decision is legally erroneous,patently unjust and potentially capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury or damage to the parties. In Tirazona v. Philippine EDS Techno-Service, Inc. (PET, Inc.), we also explained that a second motion for reconsideration may be allowed in instances of xtraordinarily persuasive reasons and only after an express leave shall have been obtained.In Apo Fruits Corporation v. Land Bank of the Philippines, we allowed a second motion for reconsideration as the issue involved therein was a matter of public interest, as it pertained to the proper application of a basic constitutionally-guaranteed right in the government implementation of its agrarian reform program.In San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC, the Court set aside the decisions of the LA and the NLRC that favored claimants-security guards upon the Court review of San Miguel Corporation second motion for reconsideration.In Vir-Jen Shipping and Marine Services, Inc. v. NLRC, et al., the Court en banc reversed on a third motion for reconsideration the ruling of the Court Division on therein private respondentsclaim for wages and monetary benefits.
The instant case qualifies as an exception to, first, the proscription against second and subsequent motions for reconsideration, and second, the rule on immutability of judgments; a reconsideration of the Decision dated September 18, 2009, along with the Resolutions dated December 14, 2009 and January 25, 2012, is justified by the higher interest of substantial justice.
In League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) v. Commission on Elections, we reiterated a ruling that when a motion for leave to file and admit a second motion for reconsideration is granted by the Court, the Court therefore allows the filing of the second motion for reconsideration.In such a case, the second motion for reconsideration is no longer a prohibited pleading. Similarly in this case, there was then no reason for the Court to still consider the respondent's second motion for reconsideration as a prohibited pleading, and deny it plainly on such ground.The Court intends to remedy such error through this resolution.
Upon review, the Court is constrained to rule differently on the petitions.We have determined the grave error in affirming the NLRC rulings, promoting results that are patently unjust for the respondents, as we consider the facts of the case, pertinent law, jurisprudence, and the degree of the injury and damage to the respondents that will inevitably result from the implementation of the Court Decision dated September 18, 2009.
LABOR LAW: rule on appeal bonds
The crucial issue in this case concerns the sufficiency of the appeal bond that was posted by the respondents. The present rule on the matter is Section 6, Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, which was substantially the same provision in effect at the time of the respondents appeal to the NLRC, and which reads: No motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on meritorious grounds and upon the posting of a bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award. The filing of the motion to reduce bond without compliance with the requisites in the preceding paragraph shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.
While the CA, in this case, allowed an appeal bond in the reduced amount of P10,000,000.00 and then ordered the case remand to the NLRC, this Court Decision dated September 18, 2009 provides otherwise, as it reads in part: While the bond may be reduced upon motion by the employer, this is subject to the conditions that (1) the motion to reduce the bond shall be based on meritorious grounds; and (2) a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award is posted by the appellant, otherwise the filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.The qualification effectively requires that unless the NLRC grants the reduction of the cash bond within the 10-day reglementary period, the employer is still expected to post the cash or surety bond securing the full amount within the said 10-day period.If the NLRC does eventually grant the motion for reduction after the reglementary period has elapsed, the correct relief would be to reduce the cash or surety bond already posted by the employer within the 10-day period.
To begin with, the Court rectifies its prior pronouncement the unqualified statement that even an appellant who seeks a reduction of an appeal bond before the NLRC is expected to post a cash or surety bond securing the full amount of the judgment award within the 10-day reglementary period to perfect the appeal.
LABOR LAW: suspension of the period to perfect the appeal upon the filing of a motion to reduce bond
To clarify, the prevailing jurisprudence on the matter provides that the filing of a motion to reduce bond, coupled with compliance with the two conditions emphasized in Garcia v. KJ Commercial for the grant of such motion, namely, (1) a meritorious ground, and (2) posting of a bond in a reasonable amount, shall suffice to suspend the running of the period to perfect an appeal from the labor arbiter decision to the NLRC. To require the full amount of the bond within the 10-day reglementary period would only render nugatory the legal provisions which allow an appellant to seek a reduction of the bond.
The rule that the filing of a motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal is not absolute. The Court may relax the rule. In Intertranz Container Lines, Inc. v. Bautista, the Court held: Jurisprudence tells us that in labor cases, an appeal from a decision involving a monetary award may be perfected only upon the posting of cash or surety bond.The Court, however, has relaxed this requirement under certain exceptional circumstances in order to resolve controversies on their merits.These circumstances include: (1) fundamental consideration of substantial justice; (2) prevention of miscarriage of justice or of unjust enrichment; and (3) special circumstances of the case combined with its legal merits, and the amount and the issue involved.
A serious error of the NLRC was its outright denial of the motion to reduce the bond, without even considering the respondent's arguments and totally unmindful of the rules and jurisprudence that allow the bond reduction.Instead of resolving the motion to reduce the bond on its merits, the NLRC insisted on an amount that was equivalent to the monetary award.
When the respondents sought to reconsider, the NLRC still refused to fully decide on the motion.It refused to at least make a preliminary determination of the merits of the appeal.
LABOR LAW: allowance of the reduction of appeal bonds
Time and again, the Court has cautioned the NLRC to give Article 223 of the Labor Code, particularly the provisions requiring bonds in appeals involving monetary awards, a liberal interpretation in line with the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits.
Although the general rule provides that an appeal in labor cases from a decision involving a monetary award may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond, the Court has relaxed this requirement under certain exceptional circumstances in order to resolve controversies on their merits.These circumstances include: (1) the fundamental consideration of substantial justice; (2) the prevention of miscarriage of justice or of unjust enrichment; and (3) special circumstances of the case combined with its legal merits, and the amount and the issue involved. Guidelines that are applicable in the reduction of appeal bonds were also explained in Nicol v. Footjoy Industrial Corporation. The bond requirement in appeals involving monetary awards has been and may be relaxed in meritorious cases, including instances in which (1) there was substantial compliance with the Rules, (2) surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious grounds to reduce the bond, (3) a liberal interpretation of the requirement of an appeal bond would serve the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits, or (4) the appellants, at the very least, exhibited their willingness and/or good faith by posting a partial bond during the reglementary period.
It is in this light that the Court finds it necessary to set a parameter for the litigantsand the NLRC guidance on the amount of bond that shall hereafter be filed with a motion for a bond reduction.To ensure that the provisions of Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure that give parties the chance to seek a reduction of the appeal bond are effectively carried out, without however defeating the benefits of the bond requirement in favor of a winning litigant, all motions to reduce bond that are to be filed with the NLRC shall be accompanied by the posting of a cash or surety bond equivalent to 10% of the monetary award that is subject of the appeal, which shall provisionally be deemed the reasonable amount of the bond in the meantime that an appellant motion is pending resolution by the Commission.In conformity with the NLRC Rules, the monetary award, for the purpose of computing the necessary appeal bond, shall exclude damages and attorney fees. Only after the posting of a bond in the required percentage shall an appellant period to perfect an appeal under the NLRC Rules be deemed suspended.
The foregoing shall not be misconstrued to unduly hinder the NLRC exercise of its discretion, given that the percentage of bond that is set by this guideline shall be merely provisional. The NLRC retains its authority and duty to resolve the motion and determine the final amount of bond that shall be posted by the appellant, still in accordance with the standards of meritorious grounds and reasonable amount Should the NLRC, after considering the motion merit, determine that a greater amount or the full amount of the bond needs to be posted by the appellant, then the party shall comply accordingly.The appellant shall be given a period of 10 days from notice of the NLRC order within which to perfect the appeal by posting the required appeal bond.
LABOR LAW: employment permit for non-resident aliens; illegal dismissal
Considering that McBurnie, an Australian, alleged illegal dismissal and sought to claim under our labor laws, it was necessary for him to establish, first and foremost, that he was qualified and duly authorized to obtain employment within our jurisdiction.A requirement for foreigners who intend to work within the country is an employment permit, as provided under Article 40, Title II of the Labor Code.
In WPP Marketing Communications, Inc. v. Galera, we held that a foreign national failure to seek an employment permit prior to employment poses a serious problem in seeking relief from the Court.
Clearly, this circumstance on the failure of McBurnie to obtain an employment permit, by itself, necessitates the dismissal of his labor complaint.
McBurnie failed to present any employment permit which would have authorized him to obtain employment in the Philippines.This circumstance negates McBurnie claim that he had been performing work for the respondents by virtue of an employer-employee relationship.The absence of the employment permit instead bolsters the claim that the supposed employment of McBurnie was merely simulated, or did not ensue due to the non-fulfillment of the conditions that were set forth in the letter of May 11, 1999.
McBurnie failed to present other competent evidence to prove his claim of an employer-employee relationship. iven the partiesconflicting claims on their true intention in executing the agreement, it was necessary to resort to the established criteria for the determination of an employer-employee relationship, namely: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee conduct. The rule of thumb remains: the onus probandi falls on the claimant to establish or substantiate the claim by the requisite quantum of evidence.Whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his or her right thereto. McBurnie failed in this regard.As previously observed by the NLRC, McBurnie even failed to show through any document such as payslips or vouchers that his salaries during the time that he allegedly worked for the respondents were paid by the company. In the absence of an employer-employee relationship between McBurnie and the respondents, McBurnie could not successfully claim that he was dismissed, much less illegally dismissed, by the latter.Even granting that there was such an employer-employee relationship, the records are barren of any document showing that its termination was by the respondentsdismissal of McBurnie.
ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE, Petitioner, v. EULALIO GANZON, EGI-MANAGERS, INC. and E. GANZON, INC., Respondents.
REYES, J.:
FACTS:
On October 4, 2002, Andrew James McBurnie (McBurnie), an Australian national, instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims against Eulalio Ganzon, EGI-Managers, Inc., and E. Ganzon, Inc., (respondents). McBurnie claimed that on May 11, 1999, he signed a 5-year employment agreement with the company EGI as an Executive Vice-President who shall oversee the management of the company hotels and resorts within the Philippines. He performed work for the company until sometime in November 1999, when he figured in an accident that compelled him to go back to Australia while recuperating from his injuries. While in Australia, he was informed by respondent Ganzon that his services were no longer needed because their intended project would no longer push through.
The respondents contend that their agreement with McBurnie was to jointly invest in and establish a company for the management of the hotels. They did not intend to create an employer-employee relationship, and the execution of the employment contract that was being invoked by McBurnie was solely for the purpose of allowing McBurnie to obtain an alien work permit in the Philippines, and that McBurnie had not obtained a work permit.
On September 30, 2004, the Labor Arbiter (LA) declared McBurnie as having been illegally dismissed from employment. The respondents filed their Memorandum of Appeal and Motion to Reduce Bond, and posted an appeal bond in the amount of P100,000.00. They claimed that an award of more than P60 Million Pesos to a single foreigner who had no work permit and who left the country for good one month after the purported commencement of his employment was a patent nullity.
On March 31, 2005, the NLRC denied the motion to reduce bond explaining that in cases involving monetary award, an employer seeking to appeal the LA decision to the Commission is unconditionally required by Art. 223, Labor Code to post bond equivalent to the monetary award.
The motion for reconsideration was denied, the respondents appealed to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (with extremely urgent prayer for the issuance of a Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order) docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 90845.
The NLRC dismissed their appeal due to respondent's failure to post the required additional bond. The respondents motion for reconsideration was denied on June 30, 2006. This prompted respondents to filed with the CA the Petition for Certiorari docketed as CA-G.R SP No. 95916, which was later consolidated with CA-G.R. SP No. 90845
The CA granted the respondent's application for a writ of preliminary injunction on February 16, 2007. It directed the NLRC, McBurnie, and all persons acting for and under their authority to refrain from causing the execution and enforcement of the LA decision in favor of McBurnie, conditioned upon the respondents posting of a bond in the amount of P10,000,000.00. The reconsideration of issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction sought by McBurnie was denied by the CA.
McBurnie filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari (G.R. Nos. 178034 and 178117) assailing the CA resolutions that granted the respondent's; application for the injunctive writ. On July 4, 2007, the Court denied the petition. A motion for reconsideration was denied with a finality on October 7, 2007.
McBurnie filed a Motion for Leave (1) To File Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration and (2) to Admit the Attached Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, a prohibited pleading under Section 2, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court. Thus, the motion for leave was denied by the Court and the July 4, 2007 became final and executor on November 13, 2007.
On October 27, 2008, the CA ruled on the merits of CA-G.R. SP No. 90845 and CA-G.R. SP No. 95916 and rendered a decision allowing the respondent's motion to reduce appeal bond and directing the NLRC to give due course to their appeal. The CA also ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in immediately denying the motion without fixing an appeal bond in an amount that was reasonable, as it denied the respondents of their right to appeal from the decision of the LA.
McBurnie filed a motion for reconsideration. The respondents moved that the appeal be resolved on the merits by the CA. The CA denied both motions. McBurnie then filed with the Supreme Court the Petition for Review on Certiorari (G.R. Nos. 186984-85)
The NLRC, acting on the CA order of remand, accepted the appeal from the LA decision and reversed and set aside the decision of the LA, and entered a new on dismissing McBurnie complaint.
On September 18, 2009, the third division of this court rendered its decision granting respondents motion to reduce appeal bond. This Court also reinstated and affirmed the NLRC decision dismissing respondent's appeal for failure to perfect an appeal and denying their motion for reconsideration. The aforementioned decision became final and executor on March 14, 2012.
The respondents filed a Motion for Leave to File Attached Third Motion for Reconsideration, with an attached Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Refer These Cases to the Honorable Court En Banc. The Court En Banc accepted the case from the third division and issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the implementation of the LA Decision. McBurnie filed a Motion for Reconsideration where he invoked that the Court September 18, 2009 decision had become final and executor.
ISSUE: Whether or not McBurnie was illegally dismissed?
HELD: There was no employer-employee relationship.
REMEDIAL LAW: second motion for reconsideration
At the outset, the Court emphasizes that second and subsequent motions for reconsideration are, as a general rule, prohibited.Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court provides that n]o second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained. The rule rests on the basic tenet of immutability of judgments.t some point, a decision becomes final and executory and, consequently, all litigations must come to an end./span>
The general rule, however, against second and subsequent motions for reconsideration admits of settled exceptions. In a line of cases, the Court has then entertained and granted second motions for reconsideration n the higher interest of substantial justice,as allowed under the Internal Rules when the assailed decision is legally erroneous,patently unjust and potentially capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury or damage to the parties. In Tirazona v. Philippine EDS Techno-Service, Inc. (PET, Inc.), we also explained that a second motion for reconsideration may be allowed in instances of xtraordinarily persuasive reasons and only after an express leave shall have been obtained.In Apo Fruits Corporation v. Land Bank of the Philippines, we allowed a second motion for reconsideration as the issue involved therein was a matter of public interest, as it pertained to the proper application of a basic constitutionally-guaranteed right in the government implementation of its agrarian reform program.In San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC, the Court set aside the decisions of the LA and the NLRC that favored claimants-security guards upon the Court review of San Miguel Corporation second motion for reconsideration.In Vir-Jen Shipping and Marine Services, Inc. v. NLRC, et al., the Court en banc reversed on a third motion for reconsideration the ruling of the Court Division on therein private respondentsclaim for wages and monetary benefits.
The instant case qualifies as an exception to, first, the proscription against second and subsequent motions for reconsideration, and second, the rule on immutability of judgments; a reconsideration of the Decision dated September 18, 2009, along with the Resolutions dated December 14, 2009 and January 25, 2012, is justified by the higher interest of substantial justice.
In League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) v. Commission on Elections, we reiterated a ruling that when a motion for leave to file and admit a second motion for reconsideration is granted by the Court, the Court therefore allows the filing of the second motion for reconsideration.In such a case, the second motion for reconsideration is no longer a prohibited pleading. Similarly in this case, there was then no reason for the Court to still consider the respondent's second motion for reconsideration as a prohibited pleading, and deny it plainly on such ground.The Court intends to remedy such error through this resolution.
Upon review, the Court is constrained to rule differently on the petitions.We have determined the grave error in affirming the NLRC rulings, promoting results that are patently unjust for the respondents, as we consider the facts of the case, pertinent law, jurisprudence, and the degree of the injury and damage to the respondents that will inevitably result from the implementation of the Court Decision dated September 18, 2009.
LABOR LAW: rule on appeal bonds
The crucial issue in this case concerns the sufficiency of the appeal bond that was posted by the respondents. The present rule on the matter is Section 6, Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, which was substantially the same provision in effect at the time of the respondents appeal to the NLRC, and which reads: No motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on meritorious grounds and upon the posting of a bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award. The filing of the motion to reduce bond without compliance with the requisites in the preceding paragraph shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.
While the CA, in this case, allowed an appeal bond in the reduced amount of P10,000,000.00 and then ordered the case remand to the NLRC, this Court Decision dated September 18, 2009 provides otherwise, as it reads in part: While the bond may be reduced upon motion by the employer, this is subject to the conditions that (1) the motion to reduce the bond shall be based on meritorious grounds; and (2) a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award is posted by the appellant, otherwise the filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.The qualification effectively requires that unless the NLRC grants the reduction of the cash bond within the 10-day reglementary period, the employer is still expected to post the cash or surety bond securing the full amount within the said 10-day period.If the NLRC does eventually grant the motion for reduction after the reglementary period has elapsed, the correct relief would be to reduce the cash or surety bond already posted by the employer within the 10-day period.
To begin with, the Court rectifies its prior pronouncement the unqualified statement that even an appellant who seeks a reduction of an appeal bond before the NLRC is expected to post a cash or surety bond securing the full amount of the judgment award within the 10-day reglementary period to perfect the appeal.
LABOR LAW: suspension of the period to perfect the appeal upon the filing of a motion to reduce bond
To clarify, the prevailing jurisprudence on the matter provides that the filing of a motion to reduce bond, coupled with compliance with the two conditions emphasized in Garcia v. KJ Commercial for the grant of such motion, namely, (1) a meritorious ground, and (2) posting of a bond in a reasonable amount, shall suffice to suspend the running of the period to perfect an appeal from the labor arbiter decision to the NLRC. To require the full amount of the bond within the 10-day reglementary period would only render nugatory the legal provisions which allow an appellant to seek a reduction of the bond.
The rule that the filing of a motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal is not absolute. The Court may relax the rule. In Intertranz Container Lines, Inc. v. Bautista, the Court held: Jurisprudence tells us that in labor cases, an appeal from a decision involving a monetary award may be perfected only upon the posting of cash or surety bond.The Court, however, has relaxed this requirement under certain exceptional circumstances in order to resolve controversies on their merits.These circumstances include: (1) fundamental consideration of substantial justice; (2) prevention of miscarriage of justice or of unjust enrichment; and (3) special circumstances of the case combined with its legal merits, and the amount and the issue involved.
A serious error of the NLRC was its outright denial of the motion to reduce the bond, without even considering the respondent's arguments and totally unmindful of the rules and jurisprudence that allow the bond reduction.Instead of resolving the motion to reduce the bond on its merits, the NLRC insisted on an amount that was equivalent to the monetary award.
When the respondents sought to reconsider, the NLRC still refused to fully decide on the motion.It refused to at least make a preliminary determination of the merits of the appeal.
LABOR LAW: allowance of the reduction of appeal bonds
Time and again, the Court has cautioned the NLRC to give Article 223 of the Labor Code, particularly the provisions requiring bonds in appeals involving monetary awards, a liberal interpretation in line with the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits.
Although the general rule provides that an appeal in labor cases from a decision involving a monetary award may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond, the Court has relaxed this requirement under certain exceptional circumstances in order to resolve controversies on their merits.These circumstances include: (1) the fundamental consideration of substantial justice; (2) the prevention of miscarriage of justice or of unjust enrichment; and (3) special circumstances of the case combined with its legal merits, and the amount and the issue involved. Guidelines that are applicable in the reduction of appeal bonds were also explained in Nicol v. Footjoy Industrial Corporation. The bond requirement in appeals involving monetary awards has been and may be relaxed in meritorious cases, including instances in which (1) there was substantial compliance with the Rules, (2) surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious grounds to reduce the bond, (3) a liberal interpretation of the requirement of an appeal bond would serve the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits, or (4) the appellants, at the very least, exhibited their willingness and/or good faith by posting a partial bond during the reglementary period.
It is in this light that the Court finds it necessary to set a parameter for the litigantsand the NLRC guidance on the amount of bond that shall hereafter be filed with a motion for a bond reduction.To ensure that the provisions of Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure that give parties the chance to seek a reduction of the appeal bond are effectively carried out, without however defeating the benefits of the bond requirement in favor of a winning litigant, all motions to reduce bond that are to be filed with the NLRC shall be accompanied by the posting of a cash or surety bond equivalent to 10% of the monetary award that is subject of the appeal, which shall provisionally be deemed the reasonable amount of the bond in the meantime that an appellant motion is pending resolution by the Commission.In conformity with the NLRC Rules, the monetary award, for the purpose of computing the necessary appeal bond, shall exclude damages and attorney fees. Only after the posting of a bond in the required percentage shall an appellant period to perfect an appeal under the NLRC Rules be deemed suspended.
The foregoing shall not be misconstrued to unduly hinder the NLRC exercise of its discretion, given that the percentage of bond that is set by this guideline shall be merely provisional. The NLRC retains its authority and duty to resolve the motion and determine the final amount of bond that shall be posted by the appellant, still in accordance with the standards of meritorious grounds and reasonable amount Should the NLRC, after considering the motion merit, determine that a greater amount or the full amount of the bond needs to be posted by the appellant, then the party shall comply accordingly.The appellant shall be given a period of 10 days from notice of the NLRC order within which to perfect the appeal by posting the required appeal bond.
LABOR LAW: employment permit for non-resident aliens; illegal dismissal
Considering that McBurnie, an Australian, alleged illegal dismissal and sought to claim under our labor laws, it was necessary for him to establish, first and foremost, that he was qualified and duly authorized to obtain employment within our jurisdiction.A requirement for foreigners who intend to work within the country is an employment permit, as provided under Article 40, Title II of the Labor Code.
In WPP Marketing Communications, Inc. v. Galera, we held that a foreign national failure to seek an employment permit prior to employment poses a serious problem in seeking relief from the Court.
Clearly, this circumstance on the failure of McBurnie to obtain an employment permit, by itself, necessitates the dismissal of his labor complaint.
McBurnie failed to present any employment permit which would have authorized him to obtain employment in the Philippines.This circumstance negates McBurnie claim that he had been performing work for the respondents by virtue of an employer-employee relationship.The absence of the employment permit instead bolsters the claim that the supposed employment of McBurnie was merely simulated, or did not ensue due to the non-fulfillment of the conditions that were set forth in the letter of May 11, 1999.
McBurnie failed to present other competent evidence to prove his claim of an employer-employee relationship. iven the partiesconflicting claims on their true intention in executing the agreement, it was necessary to resort to the established criteria for the determination of an employer-employee relationship, namely: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee conduct. The rule of thumb remains: the onus probandi falls on the claimant to establish or substantiate the claim by the requisite quantum of evidence.Whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his or her right thereto. McBurnie failed in this regard.As previously observed by the NLRC, McBurnie even failed to show through any document such as payslips or vouchers that his salaries during the time that he allegedly worked for the respondents were paid by the company. In the absence of an employer-employee relationship between McBurnie and the respondents, McBurnie could not successfully claim that he was dismissed, much less illegally dismissed, by the latter.Even granting that there was such an employer-employee relationship, the records are barren of any document showing that its termination was by the respondentsdismissal of McBurnie.
The motion for reconsideration filed on September 26, 2012 by petitioner Andrew James McBurnie is DENIED.
The motion for reconsideration filed on March 27, 2012 by respondents Eulalio Ganzon, EGI-Managers, Inc. and E. Ganzon, Inc. is GRANTED.
The Entry of Judgment issued in G.R. Nos. 186984-85 is LIFTED.
The complaint for illegal dismissal is DISMISSED.
