Case Digest GR 196047 MBella

Marck Timugen A.
Bella
Labor Law 2
Case Digest
1. Petitioner: LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING CORPORATION

Defendant: BELIO ICAO
GR# : 196047 January 15, 2014
Facts of the case:
Private respondent Icao was a lead miner of petitioner Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company
(LCMC). He was charged with “high grading” or the act of concealing, possessing or unauthorized
extraction of high-grade material/ore without proper authority. Icao denied the allegation, but still he
was dismissed from his work.
Icao filed for illegal dismissal case claiming that his dismissal was without just or authorized
cause since LCMC failed to prove by ample and sufficient evidence that he stole high grade ores from
the company. The LA ruled that LCMC is liable for illegal dismissal. On appeal, the NLRC ordered
dismissing the appeal of LCMC for failure to post the appeal bond. It contended that LCMC failed to
post the required appeal bond equivalent to monetary award. Under the NLRC rules, appeals from
decision involving monetary award maybe perfected only upon posting of a cash or surety bond within
10-day reglementary period for filing and appeal. Besides, even if the motion for release is approved,
the 10-day period has long expired, rendering the statutory right to appeal forever lost. NLRC denied
the MR.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of NLRC. It explained that LCMCs consolidated motion
praying that the cash bond it had previously posted in another labor case be released and applied to
the present one is not allowed under the rules of procedure of the NLRC.
Issue of the Case:
Whether or not petitioner complied with the appeal bond requirement under the Labor Code and
the NLRC Rules by filing a Consolidated Motion to release the cash bond it posted in another case,
which had been decided with finality in its favor, with a view to applying the same cash bond to the
present case.
Resolution:
The Petition is meritorious. The Court finds that petitioner substantially complied with the
appeal bond requirement.
In Viron Garments Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. NLRC, the court explained the mandatory
nature of the requirement of posting of a bond, as follows: The intention of the lawmakers to make the
bond an indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer, is clearly limned in
the provision that an appeal by the employer 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 perfected.
In Araneta v. Rodas, where the Court said that when the law does not clearly provide a rule
or norm for the tribunal to follow in deciding a question submitted, but leaves to the tribunal the
Page 1 of 2
discretion to determine the case in one way or another, the judge must decide the question in
conformity with justice, reason and equity, in view of the circumstances of the case. Applying this
doctrine, we rule that petitioner substantially complied with the mandatory requirement of posting an
appeal bond for the reasons explained below:
First, there is no question that the appeal was filed within the 10-day reglementary period.
Except for the alleged failure to post an appeal bond, the appeal to the NLRC was therefore in order.
Second, it is also undisputed that petitioner an unencumbered amount of money in the form
of cash in the custody of the NLRC. To reiterate, petitioner had posted a cash bond of ₱401,610.84 in
the separate case Dangiw Siggaao, which was earlier decided in its favor. As claimed by petitioner
and confirmed by the Judgment Division of the Judicial Records Office of this Court, the Decision of
the Court in Dangiw Siggaao had become final and executory as of 28 April 2008, or more than seven
months before petitioner had to file its appeal in the present case. This fact is shown by the Entry of
Judgment on file with the aforementioned office. Hence, the cash bond in that case ought to have
been released to petitioner then.
Third, the cash bond in the amount of ₱401,610.84 posted in Dangiw Siggaao is more than
enough to cover the appeal bond in the amount of ₱345,879.45required in the present case.
Fourth, this ruling remains faithful to the spirit behind the appeal bond requirement which is
to ensure that workers will receive the money awarded in their favor when the employers appeal
eventually fails. There was no showing at all of any attempt on the part of petitioner to evade the
posting of the appeal bond. On the contrary, petitioners move showed a willingness to comply with
the requirement. Hence, the welfare of Icao is adequately protected.
This Court has liberally applied the NLRC Rules and the Labor Code provisions on the
posting of an appeal bond in exceptional cases. In Your Bus Lines v. NLRC, the Court excused the
appellants failure to post a bond, because it relied on the notice of the decision. While the notice
enumerated all the other requirements for perfecting an appeal, it did not include a bond in the list. In
Blancaflor v. NLRC, the failure of the appellant therein to post a bond was partly caused by the labor
arbiters’ failure to state the exact amount of monetary award due, which would have been the basis of
the amount of the bond to be posted. In Cabalan Pastulan Negrito Labor Association v. NLRC,
petitioner-appellant was an association of Negritos performing trash-sorting services in the American
naval base in Subic Bay. The plea of the association that its appeal be given due course despite its
non-posting of a bond, on account of its insolvency and poverty, was granted by this Court.
In the above cited cases, the Court found exceptional circumstance that warranted an
extraordinary exercise of its power to exempt a party from the rules on appeal bond, there is all the
more reason in the present case to find that petitioner substantially complied with the requirement.
The Court will liberally apply the rules on in very highly exceptional cases such as this, in keeping
with the dictates of justice, reason and equity.
Page 2 of 2

Case Digest GR 196047 MBella

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest GR 196047 MBella

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marck Timugen A.

1. Petitioner: LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING CORPORATION

Facts of the case:

Issue of the Case:

You might also like