VOL.

459, JUNE 8, 2005 657

Borja Estate vs. Ballad
*
G.R. No. 152550. June 8, 2005.

BORJA ESTATE AND/OR THE HEIRS OF MANUEL AND PAULA BORJA and ATTY. MILA
LAUIGAN IN HER CAPACITY AS THE ESTATE ADMINISTRATOR, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES
ROTILLO BALLAD and ROSITA BALLAD, respondents.

Labor Law; Appeals; Surety Bonds; Pleadings and Practice; Statutory Construction; The intention of the

lawmakers to make the surety bond an indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer
is underscored by the provision that an appeal may be perfected “only upon the posting of a cash or surety
bond”—the word “only” makes it perfectly clear that the LAWMAKERS intended the posting of a cash or
surety bond by the employer to be the exclusive means by which an employer’s appeal may be considered
completed; The word “may,” on the other hand, refers to the perfection of an appeal as optional on the part of
the defeated party, if he desires to appeal.—The intention of the lawmakers to make the bond an
indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer is underscored by the provision that
an appeal may be perfected “only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond.” The word “only” makes it
perfectly clear that the LAWMAKERS intended the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer to be
the exclusive means by which an employer’s appeal may be considered completed. The law however does not
require its outright payment, but only the posting of a bond to ensure that the award will be eventually paid
should the appeal fail. What petitioners have to pay is a moderate and reasonable sum for the premium of
such bond. The word “may,” on the other hand refers to the perfection of an appeal as optional on the part of
the defeated party, but not to the posting of an appeal bond, if he desires to appeal.
Same; Same; Same; To extend the period of the appeal is to delay the case, a circumstance which would
give the employer the 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.—Evidently, the posting of a cash or surety
bond is mandatory. And the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is
not only mandatory but jurisdictional. To extend the period of the appeal is to delay the case, a circumstance
which would give the employer the chance to wear

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

658

658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Borja Estate vs. Ballad

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. As ratiocinated in the case of Viron Garments Mfg. v. NLRC: The requirement
that the employer post a cash or surety bond to perfect its/his appeal is apparently intended to assure the
workers that if they prevail in the case, they will receive the money judgment in their favor upon the
dismissal of the employer’s appeal. It was intended to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay,
or even evade, their obligation to satisfy their employees’ just and lawful claims.
Same; Same; Same; While it is true that the Supreme Court has relaxed the application of the rules on
appeal in labor cases, it has only done so where the failure to comply with the requirements for perfection of
appeal was justified or where there was substantial compliance with the rules.—While it is true that this
Court has relaxed the application of the rules on appeal in labor cases, it has only done so where the failure
to comply with the requirements for perfection of appeal was justified or where there was substantial
compliance with the rules. Hence, the Supreme Court has allowed tardy appeals in judicious cases,  e.g.,
where the presence of any justifying circumstance recognized by law, such as fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence, properly vested the judge with discretion to approve or admit an appeal filed out of
time; where on equitable grounds, a belated appeal was allowed as the questioned decision was served
directly upon petitioner instead of her counsel of record who at the time was already dead; where the
counsel relied on the footnote of the notice of the decision of the labor arbiter that the aggrieved party may
appeal . . . within ten (10) working days; in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice or unjust enrichment
such as where the tardy appeal is from a decision granting separation pay which was already granted in an
earlier final decision; or where there are special circumstances in the case combined with its legal merits or
the amount and the issue involved.
Same; Same; As the losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so also the
winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his/her case.—It bears
stressing that the bond is sine qua non to the perfection of appeal from the labor arbiter’s monetary award.
The requirements for perfecting an appeal must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable
interdictions against needless delays and for orderly discharge of judicial business. The failure of the
petitioners to comply with the requirements for perfection of appeal had the effect of rendering the decision
of the labor arbiter final and execu-

659

VOL. 459, JUNE 8, 2005 659

Borja Estate vs. Ballad

tory and placing it beyond the power of the NLRC to review or reverse it. As a losing party has the right
to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so also the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the
finality of the resolution of his/her case.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Raymundo R. Lauigan for petitioners.
     Jose De Luna for private respondents.

TINGA, J.:
1
In this petition for review  under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioners Borja Estate and/or
the Heirs of Manuel and Paula Borja and Atty.2 Mila Lauigan, in her capacity as the estate
administrator (the Borjas) assail the  Resolution of the 3 Court of Appeals Thirteenth Division
denying their motion for reconsideration and the Decision  of the same division in CA-G.R. SP No.
60700, the dispositive portion of which states:

“WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the assailed Resolutions dated April 14, 2000 and May 31, 2000 are
hereby AFFIRMED in
4
toto. The present petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.”
5
 5
The above ruling of the Court of Appeals affirmed the Resolution  of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), the decretal portion of which reads:

_______________
1 Rollo,pp. 11-57; Dated 25 March 2002.
2Id.,at pp. 72-74; Promulgated on 7 March 2002.
3  Id., at pp. 59-69; Promulgated on 31 October 2001; Penned by Associate Justice B.A. Adefuin-De La Cruz and

concurred in by Associate Justices Wenceslao I. Agnir, Jr. and Rebecca De Guia-Salvador.

4Id., at p. 69.
5 Id., at pp. 88-91; Promulgated on 14 April 2000; Penned by Commissioner Ireneo B. Bernardo of the Third Division of

the NLRC and con-

660

660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Borja Estate vs. Ballad

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents’ Motion for Reduction of Bond is hereby DISMISSED for
lack of merit. The instant Appeal is hereby DISMISSED for failure to post a cash or surety bond within the
reglementary period.6
SO ORDERED.”

The Borjas’ motion for reconsideration

7
of the above-quoted NLRC  Resolution  was likewise
dismissed in another Resolution. 8
As the Borjas’ appeal was not given due course, the Labor Arbiter’s  Decision   was in effect
affirmed, the dispositive portion of which states:
“WHEREFORE, with all the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the Spouses
Rotillo and Rosita Ballad as illegally and unjustly dismissed in a whimsical and capricious manner which is
oppressive to labor and respondents are jointly and severally ordered to reinstate complainants to their
position as overseers without loss of seniority rights with full backwages, allowances and other benefits,
computed as of the promulgation of this decision, as follows:

      1. P25,245.00—Backwages, June to October 30,

1999
    x _____ 2 (P166 x 365 over 12 x 5 months)
    P50,490.00 Backwages for both complainants
  2. P 5,0490.00—13th month pay x 3 years
    P 15,147.00
    x_______2
    P30,294.00—13th month pay for both
complainants
  3. P100,000.00—Moral damages, for both
complainants
  4. P 50,000.00—Exemplary damages, for both
complainants
    P230,784.00

_______________

curred in by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and Commissioner Tito F. Genilo.

6Id., at p. 90.
7Id., at p. 93; Dated 31 May 2000.
8Id., at pp. 77-85; Dated 29 October 1999.

661

VOL. 459, JUNE 8, 2005 661

Borja Estate vs. Ballad

      5. P272,646.00—Separation pay, in case

reinstatement is no 
     longer feasible (P5049 x 27 years x 2 for
both 
     complainants)
  6. Money equivalent of 12 cavans of shelled corn
per harvest, transportations expenses,
allowances and other benefits being enjoyed
as overseers from the time these were
withheld from them until actual payment, to
be computed in the pre-execution hearing.
  7. Plus one percent interest per month and ten
percent attorney’s fees.

All other claims 9are hereby dismissed.

SO ORDERED.”

The case arose out of the complaint filed by private respondents Spouses Rotillo and Rosita
Ballad (Ballad spouses) against the Borjas for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of 13th month pay,
separation pay, incentive pay, holiday and premiums pay plus differential pay, and moral and
exemplary damages with10the Regional Arbitration Branch No. II of the NLRC in Tuguegarao,
Cagayan, on 8 June 1999.
The Ballad spouses had been employed as overseers of the Borja Estate by its owners, the
spouses Manuel Borja and Paula Borja, since 1972. Their appointment 11
as such was later made in
writing per the certification of appointment issued by Paula Borja.
The Borja Estate comprises around two hundred (200) hectares of agricultural lands located in
the towns of Iguig, Amulung, Enrile, Solana and Baggao, Cagayan Province. It includes two
apartment 12
buildings consisting of eleven doors for rent, both located at Caritan, Tuguegarao,
Cagayan.
As overseers, the Ballad spouses’ duties included the collection of owner’s share of the harvest
from the tenants and the delivery of such share to the estate administrator, as well as to account
for it. They also collected monthly rentals from the lessees of the apart-

_______________
 9Id., at p. 85.
10 Id., at pp. 61, 77 and 79.
11 Dated 2 November 1974; Id., at pp. 59, 77 and 279.
12 Id., at pp. 59-60.

662

662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Borja Estate vs. Ballad

ment and tendered the same to the administrator. They were tasked to oversee the lands and
buildings entrusted to them and were instructed to report any untoward incident or incidents
affecting said properties to the administrator. They were allegedly
13
required to work all day and
night each week including Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.
For their compensation, the Ballad spouses received a monthly salary of P1,000.00 for both of
them, or P500.00 each. They were provided residential quarters plus food 14
and traveling
allowances equivalent to twelve (12) cavans of shelled corn every crop harvest.  In the year 1980,
said salary was increased to P2,500.00 for each of them by Paula Borja when she came15from
abroad. Until the time before their dismissal, the Ballad spouses received the same amount.
The Ballad spouses further alleged that they were appointed as the attorney-in-fact of the
owners to represent the latter in courts and/or government offices in cases affecting the titling of
the Borjas’ unregistered lands,
16
and to institute and prosecute recovery of possession thereof, as
well as in ejectment cases.
They narrated that when the spouses Manuel and Paula Borja went to the United States of
America, their children Lumen, Leonora and Amelia succeeded to the ownership and
management of the Borja Estate. On 16 October 1986, the Ballad spouses claimed that Amelia or
Mely, then residing in Rochester, New York, wrote then administrator Mrs. Lim informing her
that the heirs had extended the services of the Ballad spouses and ordered Mrs. Lim to pay the
hospitalization expenses of Rotillo Ballad which accrued to Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00). It
is also alleged that Mely had instructed Mrs. Lim to cause the registration of the Ballad spouses
as Social Security System (SSS) members so that in case

_______________
13 Id., at pp. 60 and 280.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.

663

VOL. 459, JUNE 8, 2005 663

Borja Estate vs. Ballad
17
any of the latter gets sick, SSS will shoulder their medical expenses and not the Borjas.
On 10 November 1996, according to the Ballad spouses, when Francisco Borja, brother of the
late Manuel Borja, was appointed the new administrator, he issued immediately a memorandum
to all the tenants and lessees of the Borja Estate to transact 18directly with him and to pay their
monthly rentals to him or to his overseers, the Ballad spouses.
 Upon his appointment, Francisco Borja allegedly promised to give the Ballad spouses their
food and traveling allowances aforestated but not the twelve (12) cavans per harvest which he
reduced to two (2) cavans per harvest. Francisco Borja also stopped giving the Ballad spouses
their allowances. For twenty-seven (27) years that the Ballad spouses were in the employ of the
Borjas they were purportedly not paid holiday pay, overtime pay, incentive leave pay,19
premiums
and restday pay, 13th month pay, aside from the underpayment of their basic salary.
In June 1999, the Ballad spouses alleged that Francisco Borja unceremoniously dismissed
them and caused this dismissal to be broadcast over the radio, which caused the former to suffer
shock and physical and mental injuries such as social humiliation, besmirched20
reputation,
wounded feelings, moral anxiety, health deterioration and sleepless nights.
Thus, the filing of a case against petitioners before the Labor Arbiter. The Borjas interposed
the defense that respondents had no cause of action against them because the latter were not
their employees. The Borjas insisted that the Ballad spouses were allowed to reside within the
premises of the Borja Estate only as a gesture of gratitude for Rosita Ballad’s assistance in the
registration of a parcel of land; and that they were merely utilized to do some er-

_______________
17 Id., at pp. 60 and 281.
18 Ibid.
19 Id., at pp. 60 and 281.
20 Id., at p. 60.

664

664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Borja Estate vs. Ballad
21
rands from time to time. As to the money claims, the Borjas claimed the defense of prescription.
As aforestated, the Labor Arbiter ruled that the Ballad spouses
22
had been illegally dismissed,
after concluding that they had been employees of the Borjas.
Aggrieved by the decision, the Borjas filed their
23
appeal on 26 November 1999 before the NLRC
together with a Motion for Reduction of Bond.
In a Resolution dated 14 April 2000, the NLRC dismissed the petitioners’ Motion for Reduction
of Bond. Petitioners’ appeal was likewise dismissed24in the same Resolution  for failure to post a
cash or surety bond within the reglementary period. 25
 Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration was
also denied for lack of merit in another Resolution.
Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals by way of a special civil action of
certiorari. On 31 October 2001, the Court of Appeals affirmed the  Resolutions  of the NLRC
holding that the filing of a cash or surety bond is sine qua non to the perfection of appeal from the
labor monetary’s award. 26
The Court of Appeals noted that the Borjas received a copy of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision  on
18 November 1999. They thereafter filed their Notice of Appeal and Appeal on 26 November 1999.
On even date, they also filed a Motion for Reduction of Bond. However, no proof was shown 27
that
the Borjas were able to post the required bond during the same period of time to appeal.
The Court of Appeals observed that petitioners were able to post a bond only on 17 December
1999 in the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) when the same should have been done
during

_______________
 21 Id., at p. 61.
22 Ibid.
23 Id., at pp. 62 and 86-87.
24 Id., at p. 62 and supra note 5.
25 Id., at pp. 62 and 93.
26 Dated 29 October 1999.
27 Rollo, p. 65.

665

VOL. 459, JUNE 8, 2005 665

Borja Estate vs. Ballad

the same period of appeal. As this was not done and as no justifiable reason was given for the late
filing, the 28Court of Appeals ruled that the decision of the Labor Arbiter had become final and
executory.
The Court of Appeals likewise29relied on the Labor Arbiter’s finding that the Ballad spouses
were employees of the petitioners.
Hence, the instant petition.
In this petition, petitioners in essence assert that the Court of Appeals erred in agreeing with
the NLRC that the posting of a cash or surety bond during the period of time to file an appeal is
mandatory and the failure to do so would have the effect of rendering the appealed decision final 30
and executory. Petitioners
31
further insist that they never hired the Ballad spouses as employees.
In a  Resolution   dated 24 April 2002, the Court initially resolved to deny the petition for
failure of the petitioners to show any reversible error in the decisions and resolution of the Labor
Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals.
32
However, the Court in a Resolution  dated 11 November 2002 decided to reinstate the 33
petition
after considering petitioners’ arguments contained in their Motion for Reconsideration,  in which
the Borjas stressed that the only issue sought to be resolved by their  Petition  is the correct
interpretation of the rule requiring the posting of a bond for the perfection of an appeal. They
implored the Court to contrive a definitive ruling on the matter which in their estimation has
sowed confusion
34
among practitioners as well as to those exercising quasi-judicial and judicial
functions.
There is no merit in the petition.

_______________
28 Ibid.
29 Id., at pp. 67-69.
30 Id., at pp. 17-18.
31 Id., at p. 319.
32 Id., at p. 329.
33 Id., at pp. 320-325.
34 Id., at p. 320.

666

666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Borja Estate vs. Ballad

The appeal bond is required under Article 223 of the Labor Code which 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. . . .
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.
....

Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC implements this Article with its Sections 1, 3,
5, 6 and 7 providing pertinently as follows:
Section 1.  Periods of Appeal.—Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter and the POEA
Administrator shall be 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 of the Labor Arbiter or of the
Administrator, and in case of a decision of the Regional Director or his duly authorized Hearing Officer
within five (5) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders . . .
Section 3.  Requisites for Perfection of Appeal.—(a) The appeal shall be filed within the reglementary
period as provided in Sec. 1 of this Rule; shall be under oath with proof of payment of the required appeal
fee and the posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Sec. 5 of this Rule; shall be accompanied by
memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof; the
relief prayed for; and a statement of the date when the appellant received the appealed decision, order or
award and proof of service on the other party of such appeal.
A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisite aforestated shall not stop the running
of the period for perfecting an appeal.
Section 5.  Appeal Fee.—The appellant shall pay an appeal fee of One hundred (P100.00) pesos to the
Regional Arbitration Branch, Regional

667

VOL. 459, JUNE 8, 2005 667

Borja Estate vs. Ballad

Office, or to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration and the official receipt of such payment
shall be attached to the records of the case.
Section 6. Bond.—In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter, the Regional Director or his duly authorized
Hearing Officer involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer shall be perfected only upon the
posting of a cash or surety bond, which shall be in effect until final disposition of the case, issued by a
reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission or the Supreme Court in an amount
equivalent to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and attorney’s fees.
....
The Commission may, in justifiable cases and upon Motion of the Appellant, reduce the amount of the
bond. The filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect appeal.
Section 7.  No extension of Period.—No motion or request for extension of the period within which to
perfect an appeal shall be allowed.

Thus, it is clear from the foregoing that the appeal from any decision, award or order of the Labor
Arbiter to the NLRC shall be made within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decision,
award or order, and must be under oath, with proof of payment of the required appeal fee
accompanied by a memorandum of appeal. In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter involves a
monetary award, the appeal is deemed perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond
also within ten (10)
35
calendar days from receipt of such decision in an amount equivalent to the
monetary award.
The intention of the lawmakers to make the bond an indispensable requisite for the perfection
of an appeal by the employer is underscored by the provision that an appeal may be perfected
“only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond.” The word “only” makes it perfectly clear that the
LAWMAKERS intended the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer
36
to be the exclusive
means by which an employer’s appeal may be considered completed.  The law however does not
require its outright payment, but only the

_______________
35 BiogenericsMarketing & Research Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 372 Phil. 653, 661; 313 SCRA 748,
755 (1999).
36 Globe Gen. Services and Security Agency v. National Labor Relations Commission, 319 Phil. 531, 535; 249 SCRA 408,

413 (1995).

668

668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Borja Estate vs. Ballad

posting of a bond to ensure that the award will be eventually paid should the appeal fail.37
What
petitioners have to pay is a moderate and reasonable sum for the premium of such bond.
The word “may,” on the other hand refers to the perfection of an appeal as optional38 on the part
of the defeated party, but not to the posting of an appeal bond, if he desires to appeal.
Evidently, the posting of a cash or surety bond is mandatory. And the perfection of an appeal
in the manner 39
and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but
jurisdictional.   To extend the period of the appeal is to delay the case, a circumstance which
would give the employer the chance to wear out the efforts and meager resources40 of the worker to
the point that the latter is constrained to give
41
up for less than what is due him.  As ratiocinated
in the case of Viron Garments Mfg. v. NLRC:
The requirement that the employer post a cash or surety bond to perfect its/his appeal is apparently
intended to assure the workers that if they prevail in the case, they will receive the money judgment in their
favor upon the dismissal of the employer’s appeal. It was intended to

_______________
37 Biogenerics Marketing & Research Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 372 Phil. 653, 661; 313 SCRA 748, 755 (1999);
See Rosewood Processing, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 352 Phil. 1013, 1029; 290 SCRA 408  (1998) citing  Oriental
Mindoro Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 31 July 1995, 246 SCRA 794, 801.
38 Viron Garments Mfg. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 97357, 18 March 1992, 207 SCRA 339.
39 Catubay v. National Labor Relations Commission, 386 Phil. 648, 657; 330 SCRA 440, 447 (2000);  Taberrah v. National Labor
Relations Commission,  342 Phil. 394, 404;  276 SCRA 431, 440 (1997);  Italian Village Restaurant v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 95594, 11 March 1992,  207 SCRA 204, 208 (1992);  Cabalan Pastulan Negrito Labor Association v. National
Labor Relations Commission,  311 Phil. 744;  241 SCRA 643  (1995);  Rosewood Processing, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 352 Phil. 1013, 1028; 290 SCRA 408, 420 (1998).
40 Italian Village Restaurant v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra.
41 Supra note 38.

669

VOL. 459, JUNE 8, 2005 669

Borja Estate vs. Ballad

discourage employers from using42 an appeal to delay, or even evade, their obligation to satisfy their
employees’ just and lawful claims.
In the case at bar, while the petitioners’ Appeal Memorandum and Motion
43
for Reduction of Bond,
which was annexed thereto, were both filed on time,  the appeal was not perfected by reason of
the late filing and deficiency of the amount of the bond for the monetary award with no
explanation offered for such delay and inadequacy.
As there was no appeal bond filed together with the Appeal Memorandum within the ten (10)-
day period provided by law for the perfection
44
of appeal, it follows that no appeal from the decision
of the Labor Arbiter had been perfected. Accordingly, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter became
final and executory upon the expiration of the reglementary period.
While it is true that this Court has relaxed the application of the rules on appeal in labor
cases, it has only done so where the failure to comply with the requirements for perfection of
appeal was justified or where there was substantial compliance with the rules. Hence, the
Supreme Court has allowed tardy appeals in judicious cases,  e.g., where the presence of any
justifying circumstance recognized by law, such as fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence, properly vested the judge with discretion to approve or admit an appeal filed out of
time; where on equitable grounds, a belated appeal was allowed as the questioned decision was
served45
directly upon petitioner instead of her counsel of record who at the time was already
dead;  where the counsel relied on the footnote of the notice of the decision of the labor arbiter
that the aggrieved party may appeal . . . within ten (10) working days; in order to prevent a
miscarriage of justice or unjust enrichment such as

_______________
42 Id.,
at p. 342.
43 Rollo,
p. 16.
44 Cabalan Pastulan Negrito Labor Association v. National Labor Relations Commission, 311 Phil. 744, 762-763;  241

SCRA 643, 656 (1995).

45 Catubay v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra note 39 at p. 658; p. 448.

670

670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Borja Estate vs. Ballad

where the tardy appeal is from a decision granting separation pay which was already granted in
an earlier final decision; or where there are special46
circumstances in the case combined with its
legal merits or the amount and the issue involved.
Here, no justifiable reason was put forth by the petitioners for the non-filing of the required
bond, or the late filing of the defective bond for that matter as in fact the bond they filed late on
17 December 1999 in the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) was not even47 equivalent
to the reduced amount of bond they prayed for in their Motion for Reduction of Bond.  The Court
then is not prepared to hold that the petitioners’ Motion for Reduction of Bond  was substantial
compliance with the Labor Code for failure to demonstrate willingness to abide by their prayer in
said Motion.
In addition, no exceptional circumstances obtain in the case at bar which would warrant the
relaxation of the bond requirement as a condition for perfecting the appeal.
It bears stressing that the bond is  sine qua non  to the perfection of appeal from the labor
arbiter’s monetary award. The requirements for perfecting an appeal must be strictly followed as
they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for orderly discharge
of judicial business. The failure of the petitioners to comply with the requirements for perfection
of appeal had the effect of rendering the decision of the labor arbiter final and executory and
placing it beyond the power of the NLRC to review or reverse it. As a losing party has the right to
file an appeal within the prescribed period, so also 48
the winning party has the correlative right to
enjoy the finality of the resolution of his/her case.

_______________
46 Rosewood Processing, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 352 Phil. 1013, 1029; 290 SCRA 408, 421 (1998)

citing Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 263 SCRA 638, 658 (1996).
47 Rollo, pp. 65 and 86.
48 See Ginete v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 36, 46-47; 296 SCRA 38, 46 (1998).

671

VOL. 459, JUNE 8, 2005 671

Zulueta vs. Wong

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.

     Austria-Martinez (Actg. Chairman), Callejo, Sr. and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

     Puno (Chairman), J., On Official Leave.

Petition denied.

Note.—The provision stating that an appeal by an employer may be perfected “only” upon the
posting of a cash or surety bonds shows the intention of the lawmakers to make the posting of a
cash or surety bond by the employer to be the exclusive means by which an employer’s appeal
may be perfected. (Catubay vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 330 SCRA 440 [2000])

——o0o——