Appeal bond requirement against monetary award
SECOND DIVISION [ G.R. No. 210188, February 03, 2014 ] MTM RESOURCES, INC. AND FRANCIOSA M. CASTILLO V. NENITA L. DIMAYUGA, JEFFREY MAGPANTAY, ROMEO B. ATIENZA, JR., GERARDO ESCALLA, ISIDORO M. ALVAREZ, JELLY MARIELLE P. MANGI, ERNALD A. CORDERO, MA. FATIMA L. ATO, ROMULO A. GONZAGA, PERMO MENDOZA, ROLANDO S. CUENCA, JR., ERVIN A. DOLOR, ISABELO P. TENASAS, JR., ROSSLYN P. RAMOS, RICARDO G. VILLACASTIN, JR., SUSUMU MURATA, JONEL CARANDANG, EMILIE P. VISCARA, JOEL A. CAPALIT, EBRAHIM G. DIN, RODRIGO G. RAMA, SUSAN A. LORETO, DHON F. AMARANTE, JOSE DOLOR, SIDNEY GRIMALDO, JOJIT DOROMAL BUENAFE, MENANDRO REYES, AND DONABREL SALVADOR.After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the June 28, 2013 Decision[1] and November 21, 2013 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 127726 for failure of MTM Resources, Inc. and Franciosa M. Castillo (petitioners) to show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the denial of its appeal for non-perfection.
As correctly held by the CA, Section 6, Rule VI[3] of the 2005 National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Rules of Procedure and Section 228[4] of the Labor Code, as amended, require for the perfection of an appeal that a bond be posted equivalent to the monetary award. In this instance, petitioners failed to post the corresponding bond equivalent to the monetary award adjudged by the Labor Arbiter (LA) to private respondents Nenita L. Dimayuga, Jeffrey Magpantay, Romeo B. Atienza, Jr., Gerardo Escalla, Isidoro M. Alvarez, Jelly Marielle P. Mangi, Ernald A. Cordero, Ma. Fatima L. Ato, Romulo A. Gonzaga, Permo Mendoza, Rolando S. Cuenca, Jr., Ervin A. Dolor, Isabelo P. Tenasas, Jr., Rosslyn P. Ramos, Ricardo G. Villacastin, Jr., Susumu Murata, Jonel Carandang, Emilie P. Viscara, Joel A. Capalit, Ebrahim G. Din, Rodrigo G. Rama, Susan A. Loreto, Dhon F. Amarante, Jose Dolor, Sidney Grimaldo, Jojit Doromal Buenafe, Menandro Reyes, and Donabrel Salvador despite the opportunity to do so.
It is well-settled that appeal is not a natural right nor is it a component of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege which may be exercised only in the manner provided for by law.[5] The failure of petitioners to perfect its appeal within the reglementary period rendered the ruling of the LA final and executory.[6]
SO ORDERED.
[1] Rollo, pp. 45-55. Penned by Associate Justice Angelita A. Gacutan, with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Francisco P. Acosta, concurring.
[2] Id. at 57-58.
[3] Section 6, Rule VI of the 2005 NLRC Rules of Procedure provides:
Sec. 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.[4] Article 223 of the Labor Code provides:
x x x xNo motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on meritorious grounds, and only upon the posting of a bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award. The mere filing of a motion to reduce bond without complying with the requisites in the preceding paragraphs shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.
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 x x x.[5] Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc., v. Villareal, G.R. No. 181182, April 10, 2013, 695 SCRA 468, 470, citing Fenequito v. Vergara, G.R. No. 172829, July 18, 2012, 677 SCRA 113, 117.
x x x xIn 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.
x x x x
[6] Escalante v. People, G.R. No. 192727, January 9, 2013, citing Lapulapu Devt. & Housing Corp. v. Group Mgt. Corp., 437 Phil. 297, 314 (2002). (Citations omitted)
