SC disallows petition due to fake appeal bond
FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. 225480, August 30, 2016 ] COTABATO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE [COTELCO], DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, ENGR. GODOFREDO B. HOMEZ V. JEANY H. GENZOLA, ANDY L. ANTIPUESTO, AND ANTONIO LADRA.The petitioner's manifestation dated July 5, 2016, stating that the petition for review on certiorari was mailed on June 30, 2016, and requesting that it be given an extension of thirty (30) days from July 5, 2016 within which to go to Cagayan de Oro City and secure the Certification of the attached annexes to the petition for review on certiorari from the Court of Appeals; the petitioner's manifestation dated July 19, 2016, submitting a copy of the petition for review on certiorari with all certified true copies of all pleadings in relation to the case; and the petitioner's submission of compact disc containing the soft copy of the petition for review on certiorari, are all NOTED; the counsel for petitioner is hereby required to COMPLY within five (5) days from notice hereof with A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC dated July 10, 2007 re: statement of contact details (e.g., telephone number, fax number, cellular phone number or e-mail address) of parties or their counsels in all papers and pleadings filed with the Supreme Court; the Court of Appeals is DELETED as party respondent pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended; and the Cash Collection and Disbursement Division is directed to RETURN to the petitioner the excess amount of F270.00 paid for filing fees under O.R. No. 0157209-SC-EP dated July 25, 2016.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the July 31, 2015[1] and June 7, 2016[2] Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP UDK No. 06881-MIN for failure of petitioner Cotabato Electric Cooperative (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the dismissal of its appeal for having posted a fake surety bond in contravention of the requirements provided under Article 229[3] of the Labor Code, in relation to Sections 4 (a) (5)[4] and 6,[5] Rule VI of the 2011 National Labor Relations Commission Rules of Procedure.
As correctly held by the CA, the posting of an appeal bond is not only mandatory but a jurisdictional requirement in perfecting an appeal.[6] While the Court has relaxed the rule under exceptional circumstances, namely: (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,[7] petitioner failed to show that the foregoing circumstances are obtaining in this case. Consequently, for failure of petitioner to post a genuine surety bond as required by law, the appeal was not perfected and the Labor Arbiter's Decision dated July 31, 2014 had attained finality arid hence, beyond the ambit of the Court's review.
SO ORDERED.
[1] Rollo, pp. 290-291. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Pablito Perez concurring.
[2] Id. at 316-318. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Edgardo T. Lloren concurring.
[3] Formerly Article 223 of the Labor Code per Department Advisory No. 01, Series of 2015.
[4] SEC. 4. REQUISITES FOR PERFECTION OF APPEAL. - a) The appeal shall be:
xxxx[5] SEC. 6. BOND. - In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Regional Director involves a
(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.
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.
xxxx[6] Okada v. Security Pacific Assurance Corporation, G.R. No. 164344, November 23, 2008.
Upon verification by the Commission that the bond is irregular or not genuine, the Commission shall cause the immediate dismissal of the appeal, and censure the responsible parties and their counsels, or subject them to reasonable fine or penalty, and the bonding company may be blacklisted.
xxxx (Underscoring supplied)
[7] McBurnie v. Ganzon, G.R. Nos. 178034 & 178117 and G.R. Nos. 186984-85, October 17, 2013, 707 SCRA 646, 676; citation omitted.
